B 2809 
fl2 M3 
915a 
opy 2 



•tate versus Local Control of 
Elementary Educationr— ^ .^ 







THESIS 






Presented to the Fagultt of the Graduate ScHoot of the University 

OP Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfilment of the Eequirements 

FOE the, Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



BY 

Theodore L. MacDowell 




Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
1915 



State versus Local Control of 
Elementary Education 




THESIS 

Pkesented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University 

OF Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfilment of the Eequirements 

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 



BY 

Theodore L. MacDowell 



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 
1915 



% 
^ 



UNITED STATES BUREAU OF EDUCATION 

BULLETIN. 1915, NO. 22 WHOLE NUMBER 649 



STATE VERSUS LOCAL CONTROL OF 
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION 

(FINANCE) 



BY 



THEODORE L. MacDOWELL 

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
PHILADELPHIA. PA. 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1915 



ADDITIONAL COPIES 

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM 

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

AVASIIINGTON, D. C. 

AT 

10 CENTS PER COPY 
V 



CONTENTS. 



Letter of transmittal 5 

Preface 7 

Introduction 9 

Finance 10 

I. Basis for the distribution of State school moneys 11 

Redistribution by counties on changed basis 12 

Discussion 13 

II. Extent of restriction attached to the local expenditure of State school 

moneys 18 

Complete restriction 18 

Partial restriction 19 

Discussion , 20 

III. State aid 20 

Maintenance of schools 22 

Employment of qualified teachers and the payment to teachers of a 

minimum salary 22 

School libraries 23 

Erecting and furnishing schoolhouses 23 

Free texts 24 

Local school supervision 24 

Enlargement of the sphere of public elementary education 25 

Vocational education, including manual training 25 

Day schools for deaf, blind, and crippled children 26 

Evening schools 27 

Teaching of local history and geography 27 

Medical inspection 27 

Improvement of rural-school conditions 27 

Rural schools 27 

Graded schools 28 

Consolidation 28 

Transportation 29 

Increase in average length of school term 29 

Teachers' institutes 30 

Discussion 30 

Tabular summary of purposes for which State aid is granted 31 

IV. Restrictions upon the right of localities to borrow money and to issue 

bonds '. . 32 

Authority 32 

Purpose 33 

Amount 35 

Period 37 

Denomination 39 

Rate of interest 39 

Selling price 40 

Care of the sinking fund 40 

State loans to localities 42 

Other restrictions relating to bond issues 43 

Discussion 44 

3 



CONTENTS. 



V. State regulation of the taxing duties and powers of localities 45 

Unspecified, minimum, or fixed requii'ements 46 

Regular levy 46 

Special levy 49 

Tabular summary of unspecified, minimum, or fixed tax require- 
ments 51 

Maximum limitations 53 

Rate on valuation of taxable property 53 

Amount determined by designated bases, or stated as a gross 

sum 56 

Poll tax 57 

Permissive power to localities to exceed designated maximum . . 57 

Tabular summary of maximum tax limitations 59 

Discussion 63 

VI. State intervention 63 

Transfer of authority from local to State officers 64 

Levying of taxes 64 

Duties involving the expenditm'e of school moneys 65 

Liability of localities or local officers to the State 66 

Maintenance of schools 67 

Apportionment, care, and expenditure of school money ' 67 

Provision of sanitary schoolhouses 68 

Submission of financial reports 68 

Fire drills - 68 

Removal of school furniture when building is used for other than 

school piuposes 68 

Remission of fines 69 

Withholding State school moneys 69 

Maintenance of schools for the time requii-ed by law 70 

Levying and payment of taxes 70 

Care and expenditm-e of school moneys and filing of official 

bonds 71 

Submission of reports 72 

Return of school enumeration 72 

Employment of qualified teachers and superintendents and the 

payment to them of a minimum salary 73 

Provision of specified school accommodations and accessories. . . 74 

Enforcement of the compulsory-attendance law 75 

Introduction of specified studies into the curriculum 75 

Exclusive use of State-adopted texts and State-course of study.. 75 

Laws relative to medical inspection 76 

Exclusion of instruction in foreign tongues 76 

Exclusion of denominational, sectarian, or partisan instruction.. 76 

Nonseparation of pupils because of race or social position 76 

Closing of schools during institute session 76 

Appointment of a school agent or treasurer and the reporting of 

the same 76 

Performance of all duties specified by law 76 

Discussion 80 

VII. General summary 81 

Local control 81 

Divided control 82 

Central control 82 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 



Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Education, 
Washington, June 1, 1915. 
Sir: All States in the Union maintain systems of public schools, 
and in every State support and control of schools are divided be- 
tween the State and local communities — county, township, district, 
municipality. In no two States is this division the same. In some 
the tendency is toward strong central State control, as in the State 
of New York; in some the State assumes a larger part of the burden 
of support, as in some of the Southern States; in others the burden 
of support is left almost wholly with local communities, and to these 
conununities is intrusted the control of the schools under general 
State laws. The State of Massachusetts, and other New England 
States, as well as several of the Middle Western States, offer ex- 
amples of this tendency. As expenditures for the maintenance of 
schools, and public interest in the results of these expenses, increase, 
students of education, school officers, and taxpayers desire to know 
what apportionment of support and control is likely to be most 
effective. In his study of the ''State vs. Local Control of Elementary 
Education," Dr. Theodore L. MacDowell has brought together much 
material which will be helpful to those interested in this question. 
I therefore recommend that the manuscript transmitted herewith be 
pubhshed as a bulletin of the Bureau of Education. 
Respectfully submitted. 

P. P. Claxton, 

Coimnissioner. 
The Secretary op the Interior. 

5 



PREFACE 



The relation that should exist between central and local author- 
ities has long been a favorite theme for persons interested in various 
theories of government. Many arguments have been produced, 
some based upon fact and others upon opinion, as to the relative 
merits of centralized and localized plans of government. 

In the field of education, as in governmental activities in general, 
the question of control has long been debated, and material present- 
ing the issues from a theoretical standpoint is available. Little 
attempt has been made, however, to ascertain by statistical investi- 
gation the facts as to the actual status of educational control, either 
in regard to any one State or in regard to the United States as a 
whole. As a step toward the accomplishment of this purpose, the 
present study has been conceived and prepared, and it is presented 
with the hope that it may be the starting point of other similar 
investigations into a rich field of educational polity. One practical 
value of sucli investigations lies in the fact tliat legislators are coming 
more and more to rely upon the advice of educators in framing school 
laws, frequently to the point of the adoption of new and complete 
codes. It is well, tlierefore, tliat both educators and legislators 
should realize the effect of a piece of proposed or existent legislation 
m its bearing upon control. 

So far as the selection and arrangement of material are concerned, 
the reader should keep in mind that although the study contains a 
great amount of detail, it does not purport to be a compendium of 
school law. Instead, the underlying purpose is to present a sys- 
tematic arrangement of school law in its reference to the question of 
educational control. From tliis point of view, portions of laws 
having no relation to the question of control have been eliminated, 
since to include them would be to obscure the fundamental issue.^ 

In its original form this study of control in elementary education 
was prepared as a tliesis presented to the faculty of the graduate 
school of the University of Pennsylvania in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for tlie degree of doctor of philosophy. Since its 
acceptance for that purpose it has been modified so as to include 
intervening legislation. 

1 In view of the fact that State aid for agriculture, industrial education, home economics, and consolida- 
tion of schools has received extended treatment in recent publications of the Bureau of Education (see 
Bulletin, 1914, Nos. 30, 37; Report of the Commissioner, 1913, Vol. I, Ch. XI; 1914, Vol. I, Ch. XI), the 
detailed analysis of this topic prepared by the author for inclusion in this study is printed only in abstract 
form (pp. 20-31). 

7 



8 PREFACE. 

The sources used in the preparation of the study were the most 
recent school laws of the various States as issued by the State de- 
partments of education, supplemented by the session laws of the 
legislatures in session since the date of publication of the school laws. 

For stimulus in the preparation of this study and for the general 
spirit pervading it, I am indebted to able instructors and fellow stu- 
dents at Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. 
Acknowledgment is also due to the State superintendents throughout 
the country for their ready replies, without which it would have been 
impossible for me to interpret many points of law. Acknowledgment 
is also due Mr. James C. Boykin and other members of the Editorial 
Division of the Bureau of Education for helpful criticism. My chief 
debt of gratitude, however, is to my wife, Lillian lone MacDowell, 
who with unfailing zeal has aided most materially in the completion 
of what has proved to be an arduous undertaking. 

Theodore L. MacDowell. 

January 1, 1915. 



STATE VERSUS LOCAL CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY 

EDUCATION. 



INTRODUCTION. 



While the final responsibility for the establishment and mainte- 
nance of American schools rests with each individual State, there is 
nevertheless such a uniformity in ideals and in legislation that to 
public education, more than to any other social mstitution, may the 
term "national" be applied. Yet, in our National Constitution 
there are no provisions concerning public education. Each State is 
free to adopt, therefore, any one of several policies m the adminis- 
tration of public schools. First, it might shun any and all responsi- 
bility m the education of the child, if society could afford to adopt 
such a policy. Second, acting through central authority, the State 
might raise all moneys and assume entire control of education. 
Third, it might govern through central authority, but compel local 
units to provide the entire cost by local taxation. Fourth, it might 
take a more superior position, and through its central authority 
encourage and cooperate with the localities, both fmancially and 
administratively, giving great freedom to local initiative, but reserv- 
ing final power to itself, to be exercised when necessary. This last- 
named policy furnishes a high ethical basis for educational control; 
it implies a delicate balance of central and local processes, a friendly 
attitude of the State, supreme in its unity, toward the weaker unit, 
the locality; it tends to perpetuate what has been regarded as 
America's birthright — the freedom of local government to operate 
within the constitutional limits established by the State. 

Assuming the last to represent actual conditions, this study 
endeavors primarily to determine, by an analysis of State school 
legislation,^ the present status and trend of control of elementary 
education.^ 

From the standpoint of control, legislation pertaining to education 
may be divided broadly into two divisions or aspects. In the first 
place, a State may establish regulations, either mandatory or restric- 

1 The study deals only with legislation applying generally throughout a State and does not include special 
legislation, that is, acts of a local nature. 

2 "Elementary education," as used in the study, denotes what is covered by general usage; institutions 
established for specific purposes, such as the care and education of deaf, dumb, and blind children, are 
generally under the management of a special board of trustees, and are, therefore, not included. 



10 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

tive, relating to certain broad aspects of educational administration, 
which localities must accept; here the degree of State control will 
be indicated by the nature of the regulations adopted. In the 
second place, a State may organize its admmistrative machmery of 
educational procedure either by placing certain powers in the hands 
of central agents or by placing such powers in the hands of local 
agents; here, obviously, control will be centralized or localized accord- 
ing to the nature and number of powers delegated to central agents 
on the one hand or to local agents on the other. 

By an analysis of these two phases of control it has been possible 
to obtam criteria sufficiently definite for adoption as standards of 
measurement. In selectmg such standards the effort has been to 
choose, first, only tliose functions that are generally regarded as 
fundamental in the administration of public elementary education, 
and, second, a variety sufficient to give a comprehensive view of 
each of the various State school systems. These standards then 
have been analyzed into substandards in order to provide for the 
proper classification and organization of necessary detail. It is 
recognized that there may be reasonable difference of opinion as to 
the importance of some of the standards or substandards adopted, or 
as to their grouping; it is also conceded that additional standards 
might have been included. Nevertheless, it is believed that tlie 
range of standards is sufficiently accurate and broad to compensate 
for any minor eiTors of judgment tliat may have been made in these 
respects. Suffice it to say that a careful study of school legislation 
has disclosed these standards as typical and as apparently weU 
calculated to indicate the present trend of control, whetlier central 
or local. ^ 

FINANCE. 

The policies adopted by the various States in regard to the adminis- 
tration of financial matters demand first attention in a study of edu- 
cational control. In order to see the subject of public-school finance 
in its relation to control at various angles, however, it is necessary 
to analyze it from the viewpoint of different standards, each develop- 
ing a different phase of tlie subject. This will be done in tlie following 
pages, each section dealing with a separate standard. 

' In order to insure clearness it is necessary to define a few terms that arc in frequent use throughout this 
study — "local unit" or "locality," "central authority," "local authority," "centralization" and "locali- 
zation." A "local unit" or "locality" consists of any politico-geographical subdivision of a State; that is, 
a county, a township, or a school district. "Central authority" carries out constitutional provisions and 
legislative enactments for a State at large, while "local authority " carries them out for a local unit. Finally, 
legislation that tends to impose certain mandates or restrictions upon local authority or that places certain 
powers and duties in the hands of central authority is to be considered as evidence of "centralization;" 
while the absence of State legislation tending to impose such mandates and restrictions on local authority, 
or the presence of legislation placing such jjowers and duties in the hands of local authorily, is to be 
considered as evidence of "localization." 



DISTEIBUTION OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS. 11 

I. BASES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS. 

One of the most important features of public-school finance is the 
distribution of State school moneys among localities.^ For the pur- 
pose of locating control, the bases upon which such moneys are 
generally so distributed may be classified into two general groups: 
Group 1 — (a) School population; (b) valuation of taxable property; 
Group 2 — (a) Attendance of pupils; (h) number of teachers employed 
or number of legal schools maintained; (c) inverse property valua- 
tion;^ (d) ratio of local school tax to total local tax. 

In some States, State school moneys are distributed directly to 
districts. In most States, State moneys are distributed to counties 
upon designated bases, and then redistributed to districts upon the 
same bases. In a few States, which are treated separately, the bases 
for redistribution among districts are different from the bases for dis- 
tribution among counties. 

GROUP 1. 

Thirty-three States distribute State school moneys on bases in- 
cluded in the first group, namely, school popvdation and valuation 
of taxable property. 

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 
and Wyoming distribute State school funds on the basis of school population. In 
Maine all of the proceeds of a State tax of 1| mills, also a sum equal to 6 per cent of 
the amount of the permanent school fund, and also one-half the sum received by the 
State from the tax on the franchises of savings banks, and one-half the sum assessed 
upon the deposits of trust and banking companies are distributed among the several 
towns according to the number of children therein; further, one-third of the common- 
school fund (an additional State tax of 1^ mills) is distributed on a school population 
basis, and two-thirds on a property valuation basis. 

GROUP 2. 

Eleven States distribute on bases belonging to the second group, 
namely, attendance of pupils, number of teachers employed or the 
number of legal schools mamtained, inverse property valuation, and 
ratio of local school tax to total local tax. 

California distributes on an estimate of the number of teachers employed a*nd the 
average daily attendance; Delaware, on the number of teachers employed; Florida, 
on the average attendance. Massachusetts distributes among towns whose assessed 
property valuation does not exceed $2,500,000, a part of its moneys being apportioned 
in an inverse ratio to the amount of taxable property in each town and the remainder 
in such a manner that the greater the ratio of local school tax to the entire town tax, 
, the greater is the amount of State funds received. Minnesota distributes on the num- 

1 Special appropriations, or appropriations deducted from State school moneys before the regular dis- 
tribution is made, are disregarded in this chapter because of their lack of general applicability. 



12 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

ber of pupils who have attended school for at least 40 days; Missouri, on the number 
of teachers employed and the total number of days' attendance; New Hampshire, on 
the number of pupils who have attended school for not less than two weeks during 
the year and on an inverse property valuation basis; ^ New York, on inverse property 
valuation 2 and the number of teachers employed; South Carolina, on the number 
of pupils attending day school for at least 10 school days or evening school for at least 
20 evenings; Vermont, on the percentage of the grand list (total local tax) expended 
for ciurent expenses in the maintenance of schools, on the number of teachers with spe- 
cific qualifications employed in rural schools, and the remainder on the number of legal 
schools maintained;^ and Washington, on the total number of days' attendance.* 

COMBINATION OF GROUP 1 AND GROUP 2. 

The four remaining States distribute on bases listed under both 
groups : 

Nevada distributes 70 per cent of the State distributive school fund (entire State 
school fund) on the number of teachers employed and 30 per cent on school popula- 
tion. New Jersey distributes the State school fund on the total number of days' 
attendance; while the State appropriation of at least $100,000, the proceeds of 90 per 
cent of the State school tax, and a part of the State railroad tax are distributed in 
proportion to the amount of taxalile real and personal estate in each county. 
Pennsylvania distributes one-half of the State appropriation on the numlier of teachers 
employed and one-half on the school poijulation. In Rhode Island the sum of $100 
is apportioned to each school, not exceeding 15 in number in any one town, and the 
remainder of the State school money is distributed in proportion to the school popula- 
tion. 

REDISTRIBUTION BY COUNTIES ON CHANGED BASIS. 

In a few States, State school moneys are distributed to counties 
on one basis and redistributed among districts on a different basis. 
Generally, the evident purpose of such a policy is to have the State 
moneys reach the final local unit of distribution upon a more equit- 
able basis than that of the original distribution. 

In Alabama, State school moneys are distributed to counties upon a school popu- 
lation basis and redistributed among the districts and townships in such manner 
as to provide, as nearly as possible, school terms of equal duration. In Arizona, the 
basis of distribution among counties is school population; from county to districts 
the basis of redistri])ution is average daily attendance, with the proviso that each 
district must be apportioned at least $1,000. In Idaho, the basis of distribution among 
counties is school population; the method of redistribution among districts is as 
follows: Two-thirds of all public-school moneys are apportioned on a school-popula- 
tion basis; 5 per cent of the remaining one-third, or such of the same as may be needed, 

1 The inverse property valuation basis applies only to an additional amoimt distributed among towns 
of not more than 3,500 inhabitants and whose property valuation ranges from $2,000 to $7,000 per pupil 
in average attendance. 

2 So far as this basis is concerned, it applies to districts of various property assessments up to $60,000. 
Districts and cities having property valuation above that amount receive a fixed sum. 

3 A legal school is one which has been maintained durmg any school year at least 150 days, including 
holidays and others allowed by law, unless said school was ordered closed by the local health officer on 
account of an epidemic, and in which the average daily attendance of pupils has been not less than six, 
and which has been taught by a duly qualified and legally certificated teacher whose register has been 
kept and returned as required by law. 

* The attendance of pupils of legal school age duly reported as being in private schools is included. 



DISTEIBUTIOlSr OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS. 13 

is apportioned among the rural high-school districts and districts organized under the 
consolidation plan in proportion to the number of teachers employed therein; 50 
per cent of the remainder, or so much as may be needed, is used for the relief of all 
districts which are unable to maintain the minimum term; the balance is apportioned 
among the several districts per capita per school child. In Nebraska, the basis for 
distribution among counties is school population; State funds, increased by proceeds 
of fines and licenses, are redistributed among districts as follows, one-fourth equally 
and three-fourths according to school population. In New Jersey, the State school 
fund is distributed to counties on the basis of total days' attendance, while the State 
appropriation of at least $100,000, the proceeds of the State tax for school purposes, 
and the proceeds of the railroad tax are distributed to counties on the basis of the total 
number of ratables; all such funds are redistributed among districts on a combined 
teacher and total days' attendance basis. In South Dakota, State school moneys 
are distributed to counties upon a school-population basis, and redistributed among 
the districts in proportion to the acreage of State-owned indemnity and endowment 
lands in each school district, with the proviso that the amount received by any dis- 
trict in any year may not exceed the equivalent of 5 cents per acre or $250 per 
school. 

DISCUSSION. 

Unfortunately the bases selected by State legislatures for the 
distribution of school moneys do not always produce the desired 
result — that is, an equalization of educational advantages throughout 
the State. Distribution either on a property-valuation basis or a 
school-population basis appears at first thought to be fair, but may 
result in aiding most the very localities that are best able to care for 
themselves and in slighting those that can ill afford to be neglected. 
That is, distribution on a property-valuation basis means that the 
richer localities receive the greater amount of State support, irre- 
spective of their real educational needs, which may or may not be 
proportionate to wealth. However, it should be noted that neither 
of the two States that have adopted this basis — ^Maine and New 
Jersey- — apportions all of its school moneys on such basis alone. 

While the inequality of distribution on a school-population basis 
is probably not so marked as it is on a property-valuation basis, 
nevertheless inequality exists to a considerable degree. By school 
population is meant the total number of children of certain ages 
residing in a given locality. These ages are not coincident with the 
ages of compulsory attendance, but extend over a greater period. 
Therefore, it may so happen, for example, in the case of two localities 
having school populations of the same size, that the one which does 
not enforce the compulsory-attendance law nor encourage the attend- 
ance of children before and after the compulsory-attendance age, 
nor provide kindergarten and high-school facihties, may receive 
relatively more per pupil in actual attendance than the other locality 
which does all of these things, Therefore, the more a locality fosters 
its schools, the greater is the amount of local school tax which it has 
to levy. The more progressive a locality is, the greater does the 



14 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

inequity under this method of distribution become. It is interesting 
to note here the corrective which Michigan has adopted, namely, 
that when any school district shall have on hand enough funds to 
meet its needs, the children in said district — 

shall not be counted in the apportionment until the amount of money in the primary- 
school interest fund in said district is insufficient to pay teachers' wages or tuition 
for the next ensuing two years. 

All of the bases in the second group seem to be more equitable 
than those so far considered. An inverse property valuation basis 
has as its fundamental purpose an equalization of educational advan- 
tages, inasmuch as the poorer localities receive more or relatively 
more than the richer localities, which are better able to support their 
schools by local tax; while the distribution of moneys on the principle 
that the more a locaHty appropriates for its schools the more it will 
receive from the State has stimulation of local support as its purpose. 
The other bases, that is, attendance of pupils and number of teachers 
employed, are also not only more equitable than the bases under the 
first heading, but they also have the effect of stimulating local 
authorities to constant activity. On the one basis, local authorities 
must see that children are encouraged to attend school; on the other 
basis, a State offers an inducement to local authorities to employ a 
number of teachers sufficient to meet the needs of the locality. 

The methods of distributing State school funds on a school popula- 
tion basis or on a property valuation basis have no doubt been 
adopted on account of simplicity, but little control exists under such 
methods of distribution. The modification of the method of distrib- 
uting on a property valuation basis — that is, inversely in proportion to 
the wealth of the locality — indicates a rise of the idea of the necessity 
of attempting to secure equality of educational opportunity and 
suggests central control. The methods of distributing on the bases 
of attendance or of number of teachers employed have doubtless been 
adopted in order to establish a closer correlation between need and 
award, and the method of distribution according to the ratio of local 
school tax to total local tax has for its purpose the direct recognition 
of local initiative; but all these methods have also had the effect of 
increasing central control. 

From this analysis, it may be said that in the matter of distribution 
of State school funds the present status of educational control is 
that of incomplete and ineffective centraHzation. Fundamentally, 
the distribution of State school moneys is in itself a central and a 
centralizing process, but in only a comparatively few States do the 
methods of distribution in vogue give opportunity for the exercise 
of efficient central control; practically, therefore, a safer characteriza- 
tion of the results of the analysis would be to say that they indicate 



DISTRIBUTION OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS. 15 

an actual condition of localization rather than of centralization. 
However, in proportion as the States endeavor to equahze educa- 
tional opportunity on the one hand, and on the other to encourage 
local effort and local initiative by adopting distributive bases looking 
toward these ends, to that extent wiU centraUzed control become 
increasingly effective. 



16 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 



&J 



<> 



05 



.2 

i 

a 

a 

o 
.2 

o 
o 
t>> 

rt 
1 

'-3 

<c 

P3 


g 

.2 

a 
a 


la 

.a 

■s 


« 
1 

"o 

d 


11 
a »^ 
















03 

<a 

a 
.2 • 

C3 
11 

as 

"o 03 
P 




























1 
a 



"3 3 
.0 

■n 3 

m ft 

•- 

■a ft 

1I 














a „ 

■3.2 

11 


c 

p 

e 


c 
■0 
















1 

3 

ft 

& 

"o 

xi 





























a 
"3 

& 
a 

1 




IS 

c 

1 

< 








p. 

3 
o 

.20 

a 




















































• 


a 


_o3 
3 

& 
ft 

1 




3 
"3 

a 


ft 

(0 

i 

■a . 
IJ 






1 










































X 
























S aj 3 n 




























* 










X 














X 




X : 










X 




X 






























X 












X : 










X 






X 
























X 


X 






X 








P4 






































X 




























0^ . 
03 a 

S3 0.0 

si:- 


XXX 


XX 




XX xxxxxx 


X 


X 


X 


XX 






X 


X 






0: 

1 

< 


1 
< 


5 
c 
0: 

< 




1 

c 


c 
a 
C 

c 


1 

P 


c 


c 


0: 

5 


1 


1 


03 

1 




C 


> 

1 


^0 

1 

c 


'0 




J 











i 




1 









J. 

c 



1 


■ > 
1 


c 




1 





DISTEIBUTION OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS, 



17 



03 T3 

ti 

O ft 

fto 



XXXX 



o 






'3 « '-S o 



>>"oft 




90757°— 15— 2 



18 CONTEOL OF ELEMENTAKY EDUCATION. 

n. EXTENT OF RESTRICTION ATTACHED TO THE LOCAL EXPENDITURE 
OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS.' 

The preceding standard disclosed the fact that every State in the 
Union supports, to some extent at least, its free public schools. On 
the assumption that the distribution of State school moneys is in 
itself a centralizing process, the standard was analyzed as to the 
various bases upon which such moneys are distributed so as to ascer- 
tain the degree of centralization inherent in each method. The 
standard now to be considered carries the analysis in a somewhat 
different direction; irrespective of the basis or bases upon which 
State school moneys are distributed in each of the various States, the 
extent of restriction placed upon localities in the expenditure of such 
moneys also indicates the degree of centralization. If a State dis- 
tributes the entire amount of its regular allotment of State school 
moneys to be expended for a specific purpose or for specific purposes 
and none other, restriction may be said to be complete and control 
central. If a State distributes a part of the State school moneys 
under certain restrictions as to expenditure and the remainder unre- 
strictedly, then restriction may be said to be partial and control 
divided. If a State distributes moneys without any restriction what- 
ever as to their expenditure by a local unit, then we may say that 
the expenditure of State school moneys is unrestricted and control 
local. 

COMPLETE RESTRICTION. 

In order that all children, no matter what their social or economic 
level, may receive at the public expense the foundations of education, 
23 States ^ designate m their school laws the specific purpose or pur- 
poses for which State school moneys are to be expended by localities. 

In 13 of these 23 States — California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, 
and Wisconsin ^ — all State school moneys appropriated to the localities must be 
applied exclusively to the payment of teachers' salaries, an expense constituting a 
large portion of public school expenditures. 

In the remaining 10 States, State school moneys must also be applied primarily to 
the payment of teachers' salaries, but not exclusively to this purpose, the following 

1 The moneys referred to in this chapter inchide funds distributed in the regular apportionment to local 
units generally and not fimds distributed under special conditions or for special purposes. 

2 Arizona, California, Colorado, Coimecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, 
Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. 

3 Section 558, page 253, school laws cf 1911, provides that the money received from the State (Wisconsin) 
by each district shall be devoted exclusively to the payment of teachers' wages; the constitution provides 
that the income of the school fund shall be applied to the support of schools and the purchase of suitable 
libraries and apparatus therefor. Whether these apparently conflicting provisions can be reconciled or 
not, it is certain that the legislature here requires that districts shall pay each year for teachers' wages an 
amount equal to that received from the income of the school fund.— (Interpretation of the State superin- 
tendent.) 



LOCAL EXPENDITURE OF STATE SCHOOL MONEYS. 19 

additional purposes being included: In Ai-izona, for salaries of other employees and 
for other contingent expenses and, in Colorado, for necessary school expenses, pro- 
vided, in both States, that if any balance remains after the expense of maintaining 
school for the prescribed term has actually been paid, such balance may be used for 
other purposes specified by law; in Delaware and Wyoming, for fiunishing free texts; 
in Maine, for teachers' board, fuel, janitors' service, conveyance of pupils, and tuition 
and board of pupils; in Maryland, for free texts and stationery; in Michigan, for tui- 
tion and transportation of school children; in New Jersey, for fuel, transportation, and 
tuition of pupils; in Ohio, for salaries of superintendents; in Utah, for compensating 
county superintendents, including their actual and necessary traveling expenses, and 
for the expenses of county institutes. 

PARTIAL RESTRICTION. 

The other form of restriction attached to the expenditure of State 
school moneys by locahties may be termed partial. A State may 
require that State school moneys must first of all be expended for a 
specified purpose, permitting localities to expend the remainder, if 
any, for other purposes; or it may require localities to set aside a 
specified portion or percentage of State school moneys for a certain 
purpose, permitting localities to dispose of the remainder; or it may 
forbid the use of State school moneys for certain purposes, but permit 
localities to expend such moneys for any other purpose. Seven States 
adopt this form of restriction. 

In Alabama, not more than 4 per cent of all moneys appropriated for the support of 
schools may be used or expended otherwise than for the payment of teachers employed ; ^ 
and no school moneys distributed to the various counties from State school revenue 
may be paid, either directly or indu-ectly, for the erection of schoolhouses, for school- 
room furniture, or for any other contingent expenses of schools. In Arkansas, the com- 
mon-school fund apportioned by the State may not be used for building purposes; 
$25 of this sum, however, may be expended annually in each district for maps and 
other supplies, subject to the approval of the State superintendent and a majority of 
the qualified electors. In Massachusetts, not more than 25 per cent of the common- 
school fund may be applied to the purchase of books of reference, maps, and appara- 
tus. In New Hampshire, one-fifth of the portion of the literary fund (State school 
fund) may be applied to the purchase of blackboards, dictionaries, maps, charts, and 
school apparatus; the remainder must be used for the maintenance of schools. In 
Oregon, at least 85 per cent of the amount received from the irreducible school fund 
(State school fund) must be applied to the payment of teachers' salaries. In Texas, 
State school moneys must be used exclusively for paying the salaries of teachers and 
of superintendents, and for fees for taking the school census; provided that, if there 
should be any surplus after schools have been maintained for at least 8 months, such 
sm-plus may be expended at the discretion of the board of school trustees of the 
district concerned. In Washington, State funds must be applied exclusively to the 
current use of the common schools, and may not be applied to the building of 
schoolhouses or to permanent improvements thereon. 

1 Thelegislaturemay, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, suspend the operation of this constitutional 
provision. 



20 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 



DISCUSSION. 

This examination of State school laws has shown that in 30 States * 
the expenditure of State school moneys by localities is restricted, in 
23 of these States the form of restriction being complete and in 7 
States partial. In 18 States- State school moneys are distributed 
to the various localities without any restriction whatever as to expend- 
iture. From these facts it may be concluded that in regard to the 
expenditure of State school moneys control is divided, with a tendency 
toward centralization. 

In itself restriction of the expenditure of State school funds by 
localities indicates a marked form of centralization. Such restriction 
of State school funds has no doubt arisen because the several States 
adopting this restriction consider it their duty to see that school 
moneys are wisely and economically utilized. That is, they believe 
that when a State has received from the Federal Government a land 
grant for education purposes or when a State determines to collect a 
general State school tax or decides to utilize a portion of the wealth 
arising from natural resources for school purposes, it can not relieve 
itself of the responsibility of a wise and economical expenditure of 
such money. 

Extent of restriction attached to the expenditure of State school moneys. 



States. 



Alabama 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticiit.. 

Delaware 

Kentucky 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Nebraska 



Complete. 



Partial. 



States. 



Nevada 

New nampshire . 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Rhode Island 

Texas 

Utah 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 



Complete. 



Partial. 



m. STATE A1D.5 



Distinct from the regular distribution of State school funds and the 
study of restrictions attached to their expenditure is the appropria- 
tion conditionally of State school moneys under the usual designation 
of "State aid." ^ State aid, so defined, consists of funds supple- 

1 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Mary- 
land, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Vir- 
ginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. 

2 Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, 
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont. 

3 See note on p. 7. 

* At times legislation providing for State aid becomes practically inoperative because of the failure of 
legislatures to make the necessary appropriations. 



STATE AID. 21 

mental to the general school funds granted under restrictions either 
for the purpose of assisting localities to carry out their educational 
ideals or to meet their pressing educational needs. When a State 
offers funds for the purpose of enabling localities to meet pressing 
needs, the usual restriction is that the maximum tax specified by 
law must have been levied before State aid will be granted. When 
aid is offered for the purpose of assisting localities to carry out their 
educational ideals, there are other conditions attached, the most com- 
mon of which is that localities must first raise a certain sum by 
taxation, subscription, or otherwise, to be devoted to the purpose for 
which State aid is desired. 

In granting State aid under existing practices a State may make 
annual appropriations, biennial appropriations, or it may make 
special appropriations. It may enact that an order be drawn directly 
upon the State treasury, or it may designate the special State fund 
or funds from which the aid is to be drawn; it may retain each year 
from the general distribution of State school moneys a certain amount, 
or it may make provision for State aid only when a balance remains 
from the regular apportionment of school moneys. 

Usually, State aid is granted in annual installments, the gross 
annual amount available for distribution among localities for any 
one purpose being limited by legislative action. The provision is 
also rather generally made that, if the amount of State aid appro- 
priated is insufficient to aid all schools to the fuU extent of their 
needs, the amount available is either to be prorated among all the 
schools that have comphed with conditions thereto or else to be dis- 
tributed among districts which are in greatest need. 

State aid is granted in 34 States.^ The purposes for which aid is 
granted vary, comprising the following: (1) Maintenance of a mini- 
mum school term, including an equalization of educational advan- 
tages; (2) employment of qualified teachers and the payment to 
teachers of a minimum salary; (3) estabhshment and maintenance of 
school libraries; (4) erecting and furnishing schoolhouses; (5) supply- 
ing free textbooks; (6) establishment and maintenance of local school 
supervision; (7) extension of elementary school work or enlargement 
of the sphere of pubUc elementary education; (8) improvement of 
rural school conditions, including improvement of rural schools, the 
establishment of graded schools, consoMdation of schools, and pro- 
vision for transportation; (9) increase in the average length of the 
school term; and (10) support of teachers' institutes. 

Grants of State aid for each of the preceding purposes are closely 
restricted by State legislation. Owing to the varying character of 

1 Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massa- 
chusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, New York North Caroluia, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. 



22 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

these restrictions, they are grouped for purpose of analysis under 
(a) general restrictions and (ft) restrictions as to the amount of aid 
granted. 

MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOLS. 

One of the main purposes for which State aid is granted is the 
rather general one of the maintenance of public schools, including 
an equalization of educational advantages. In granting aid for 
such purpose, central authority has a wide field for effective op- 
eration. At the present time 17 States adopt this pohcy. 

General restrictions. — In 14 of these States,^ aid is proffered when localities are 
financially unable to live up to the requirements of the law. So far as the three re- 
maining States are concerned, in Connecticut and Vermont aid is granted when 
localities actually have lived up to all the requirements of the law; in Nevada, only 
to districts formed after the regular apportionment of funds has been made, provided 
the new district has employed a competent teacher and secm-ed a proper building. 
As to the 14 States included in the larger group, in 12 of them aid is granted only when 
localities have levied the maximum amount required by law; in Montana, the regu- 
lar tax must have been levied, and in North Carolina, a specified tax. In Colorado, 
Indiana, Kansas, Missom"i, Nebraska, and North Carolina still other conditions are 
attached to the grants. 

Restrictions as to amount. — ^The amount of aid varies: In Colorado, Maine, North 
Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia, special appropriations ranging 
from $5,000 to |250,000 in the aggregate are made annually. In Connecticut, locali- 
ties receive such an amount as will enable them to expend $25 for each child in aver- 
age attendance; in Idaho, 50 per cent of any amount remaining from the regular 
apportionment of school moneys; in Indiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, and New Mexico, 
an amount necessary to bring the school term up to the minimum; in Kansas, three- 
foiuths of the difference between the amount necessary to maintain the minimum 
term and the annual income of the district from all sources; in Maine, in unorganized 
townships, so much of the interest on the reserve land fund as added to the per capita 
tax will pay the expenses of the schools; in Missouri, an amount sufficient to make 
up the deficit in maintaining schools for eight months, up to a maximum of $80 per 
district; in Montana, from the proceeds of a State levy an amount equal to 5 per cent 
of 1 mill, for extending the school term beyond six months; in Nevada, an amount 
sufficient to pay teachers' salaries in districts formed after the regular apportion- 
ment has been made. In Tennessee, 10 per cent of the general education fund is set 
aside as a special fund, a part of which is used for equalizing school terms throughout 
the State. 

EMPLOYMENT OF QUALIFIED TEACHEES AND THE PAYMENT TO 
TEACHERS OF A MINIMUM SALARY. 

State aid is granted in eight States, either on a basis of teacher 
efficiency or on a basis of minimum salary. 

General restrictions. — In adopting this policy, three States^ place a premium upon 
teacher efficiency by making it worth while for localities to employ only well-quali- 
fied teachers; and five States ' assist localities to pay to teachers at least a minimum 

' Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, NeVjraska, New Mexico, 
North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, West Virgmia. 

2 Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin. 

3 Colorado, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia. 



STATE AID, 23 

salary for the minimum term. On the first basis, teacher efficiency ia determined 
by the grade of certificate held or by the quality of the teaching work done; on the 
second, localities, in order to receive State aid, must show that they have, among 
other things, levied the maximum tax and that funds are etill insufficient to pay the 
minimum salary. 

Restrictions as to amount. — In Minnesota, the amount of aid granted ranges from $75 
to |150 per teacher annually, according to the gi'ade of certificate held; in New Hamp- 
shire, it is $2 per teacher per week; and in Wisconsin, $50 per school annually for 
three years. In Ohio, Utah, and West Vhginia the grant is a sum sufficient to pay 
teachers the minimum salary for the minimum term; in Colorado, not more than 
$60,000 of the State public -school income fund may be used for this purpose; in Rhode 
Island, the State pays one-half the excess $400 is over the salary paid prior to the 
passage of the minimum-salary law. 

SCHOOL LIBEAEIES. 

Grants of State aid for the establishment and maintenance of ele- 
mentary school libraries are made in 11 States.^ In only one 
State ^ is aid granted for the purchase of books for teachers and the 
establishment of a pedagogical library. 

General restrictions.— The conditions attached to such grants may be met very 
easily, the most general one being that when localities (generally through patrons 
and friends of the school) raise a specified sum, the State contributes a like or 
otherwise stated amount; in four States^ the county or district is also required to 
appropriate an additional sum. In five States,* the books must be selected from 
lists approved by centi-al authorities — the State superintendent, the State board of 
education, or the State high-school board- — and the libraries must be governed by 
rules laid down by the same authorities. 

Restrictions as to amount. — The amounts gi-anted range from $10 to $20 annually 
for establishment of libraries and $5 and $10 annually for maintenance. In Alabama, 
Maryland, and Virginia, $10 is granted annually; in Connecticut, North Carolina, 
and South Carolina, $10 for establishment and $5 for maintenance; in Connecticut, 
if there are more than 100 pupils, $10 additional for establishment and |5 additional 
for maintenance for every 100 or fractional part of 100 pupils in excess of the first 
100; in New Jersey and Tennessee, $20 for establishment and $10 for maintenance; 
in New York, $18 for establishment and $2 additional per teacher employed for the 
legal term; in Minnesota, one-half the purchase price, not exceeding $20 for the fitrst 
year and $10 for any subsequent year; in Rhode Island, one-half the amount ex- 
pended at the rate of $10 per school, not exceeding $200 in any one town. In New 
Jersey, $100 is granted annually for the establishment of a county teachers' library 
and not less than $50 or more than $100 annually for maintenance. 

ERECTING AND FURNISHING SCHOOLHOUSES. 

In New Mexico, when the regular income of a school district is 
insufficient to maintain school for five months, application may be 
made to the State for funds to build a schoolhouse or to complete or 
properly furnish a schoolhouse. If the State superintendent and 

1 Alabama, Connecticut, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, 
South Caroliaa, Tennessee, Virginia. 

2 New Jersey. 

3 Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia. 

^ Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, South Caroliaa, Virginia. 



24 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

the attorney general approve the appUcation, the State pays not 
more than $300 for building or completing a schoolhouse nor more 
than $50 for furnishing a schoolroom, provided the district fur- 
nishes m labor or money at least one-third of the cost of construc- 
tion, completion, or furnishing, and procures title in fee simple to 
the site. Any district receivmg such aid must, when there is a 
surplus remainmg in the funds after the expenses for maintaining 
a five months' term have been paid, pay such surplus to the State 
until the amount advanced has been refunded. 

FREE TEXTS. 

In Missouri, whenever provision is made for the furnishing of free 
texts to all pupils in at least the first four grades in the public schools 
of a district, the county subapportions annually to each such school 
district from the county foreign insurance tax moneys received from 
the State an amount to be determined by multiplying the number 
of children on the last enumeration list by the ratio used by the 
State auditor in making the distribution of such moneys among 
the counties of the State.* 

LOCAL SCHOOL SUPERVISION. 

Requests on the part of localities and interest on the part of the 
States have popularized the custom of granting State aid for local 
supervision, of which there are two forms, (1) county, town, or dis- 
trict supervision, and (2) union supervision. The States which grant 
aid for county, town, or district supervision are Connecticut, Maine, 
New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont. In 
the same group of States, excepting Tennessee but includmg Massa- 
chusetts and New Hampshire, the legislatures also grant aid to 
localities forming a union for supervisory purposes. 

General restrictions. — The conditions attached to gi'ants for county, town, district, 
or union supervision are simple and similar in the nine States - in which aid is given 
for such purpose. In seven of these States,^ there must be a certain number of schools 
maiu tabled, a certain number of teachers employed, or a certain population; in seven* 
the superintendent or supervisor employed must possess certain qualifications, and 
in five^ he must devote all of his time to superintendence; in seven ^ it is specified 
that a considerable portion of the salary of the superintendent must be paid by the 
employing local imit. 

Restrictions as to amount. — The amount of aid granted ranges from $350 upward; in 
Tennessee the maximum amount of aid toward the salary of a county superintendent 
is 1350, and toward the salary of a supervisor an amount not exceeding what is paid 

1 A school district containing an Incorporated town or city is not entitled to such aid. 
* Coimecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Tennes- 
see, Vermont, 
s Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont. 
4 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont. 
6 Maine, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee (for maximum aid), Vermont (for maximum aid). 
6 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont. 



STATE AID. 25 

for such purpose by the county board of education; in New Jersey $600 is granted 
annually toward the salary of a superintendent and $400 toward the salary of an 
assistant superintendent; in Rhode Island the amount granted is $750; in Connecti- 
cut, Maine, and New York the amount granted is $800, or not exceeding $800; in 
Massachusetts the amount is $1,250; in Vermont the maximum amount is $1,300; 
in New Hampshire the State pays one-half of the superintendent's salary. 

ENLARGEMENT OF THE SPHERE OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

In the solution of current social problems, the public elementary 
school has been called upon to broaden its curriculum and to offer 
increasing advantages. Such enlargement of the scope of the ele- 
mentary school has been encouraged in 15 different States^ by 
grants of State aid. In this extension, localities, as a rule, take the 
initiative by introducing and maintaining special courses of instruc- 
tion. States respond, not only in a financial way, but by the selec- 
tion of certain central authorities, usually the State superintendent 
of schools and the State board of education, to supervise and direct 
the instruction and expenditures. The extension of elementary school 
work includes such phases as vocational education, including manual 
training; the establishment and maintenance of day schools for the 
deaf or for the deaf and the blind; the establishment and maintenance 
of evening schools; the compilation and teaching of local history and 
local geography; and provision for medical inspection of schools. 

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, INCLUDING MANUAL TRAINING. 

The most frequent form of public elementary school extension is the 
introduction and maintenance of vocational education, including 
manual training. Ten States ^ make annual grants for such 
purpose.^ 

General restrictions. — The conditions attached to the grants refer mainly to the main- 
tenance of a minimum school term, equipment of buildings, courses of study, and 
qualifications of teachers. In all of the States, except Tennessee, the schools or their 
courses of instruction must have the approval of central authorities — the State super- 
intendent, the State board of education, or the State high-school board. 

Restrictions as to amount. — State aid for the purposes under consideration is some- 
times granted as a definite sum and sometimes as a sum proportionate to the amount 
raised by the locality concerned. 

In Indiana the grant is toward the salary of a county agent appointed to encourage 
practical education in agriculture and domestic science; one-half the amount paid by 
the county for such purpose is granted, such aid not to exceed $1,000 annually per 
county. 

In Vermont, when a grammar school has been maintained with a course in manual 
training, $250 a year is granted. 

1 Coniiecticut, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, 
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsia. 

2 Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, 
Wisconsin. 

3 A number of States grant aid for vocational schools which are open to children over 14 years of age, 
irrespective of their completion of elementary school work. Such legislation is not included in this study. 



26 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

In Maine, when instruction in manual training or domestic science has been pro- 
vided for the pupils of elementary schools, two-thirds of the total salary paid to each 
teacher is granted. 

In Maryland, when colored industrial schools have been established and main- 
tained, $1,500 annually is granted. 

In Minnesota a graded school maintaining a course in agriculture and either home 
economics or manual training receives $1,000 annually; a graded or consolidated rural 
school with certain equipment and trained instructors giving instruction in agricul- 
ture may receive a maximum of $2,500 annually, and in addition a maximum of $150 
annually for each rural school district associated with it; each associated school district 
may also receive aid to the amount of $50 annually. 

In Montana, when manual or industrial schools or courses are established, the State 
pays annually $10 for each pupil attending for a period of six months or more yearly. 

In North Dakota, any graded or consolidated rural school fitted to do agricultural 
work and employing trained instructors in agriculture, manual training, and domestic 
science may receive from the State $2,500 and its proportionate share of all moneys 
appropriated by the National Government for the teaching of agriculture in the public 
schools of the State. 

In Rhode Island, when instruction in manual training and household arts is intro- 
duced into the public schools, one-half the amount actually expended for equipment 
is granted. 

In Tennessee, as aid for introducing and supervising industrial work and including 
agriculture, home economics, manual training, and kindred subjects in county ele- 
mentary schools, a part of 10 per cent of the general education fund is appropriated. 

In Wisconsin, when special instruction in agriculture and other designated industrial 
subjects is given in graded schools of the first and second classes, districts receive $100 
annually. Also, when free high-school boards maintain in connection with free high 
schools and the two upper grades next below the high school a department of manual 
training, domestic economy, or agriculture, or any or all of these departments, the 
State grants one-half the amount actually expended for instruction, not to exceed $350 
for each department established. 

DAY SCHOOLS FOR DEAF, BLIND, AND CRIPPLED CHILDREN. 

State aid for the establishment and maintenance of day schools for 
deaf, blind, and crippled children is given in three States only — 
Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

General restrictions. — The main condition attached to the receipt of such aid is that 
school must have been maintained for at least nine months in the year. In Michigan 
and Ohio there must be an average attendance of not less than three pupils, and in the 
same States teachers must have had both special training and experience; in Wis- 
consin, the qualifications of teachers employed must have the approval of the State 
superintendent. In Micliigan the amount granted must be expended for the payment 
of teachers' salaries and the purchase of necessary school appliances; in Wisconsin 
aid for instniction of blind pupils must be expended so as to include instruction in 
music and manual training, and to cover necessary expenses for material and printing. 

Restrictions as to amount. — In each of these States, $150 is granted annually for each 
deaf pupil instructed; in Ohio, $150 is also granted for each crippled pupil instructed; 
and in Wisconsin, $150 is granted for each defective-speech pupil instructed. In 
Wisconsin when parents are unable to meet the expense, $100 additional per pupil is 
granted for the instruction of deaf or defective-speech pupils residing in the State, but 
not in the district in which the school is located. In Ohio and Wisconsin, $200 is 
granted annually for each blind pupil instructed. In each of the States considered 
a proportionate share of the amount of State aid is granted when a pupil is instructed 
less than nine months in the year. 



STATE AID. 27 



EVENING SCHOOLS. 



State aid for the establishment and maintenance of elementary 
evening schools is granted by three States — Connecticut, Maine, and 
New Jersey. 

General restrictions. — In Connecticut, such schools must be in session at least 75 
sessions in each school year; in New Jersey for a term of four months, each month to 
consist of 16 sessions of at least two hours each. In Maine the course of study must 
include instruction in freehand and mechanical drawing, domestic science, or manual 
training, or the elements of the trades; in New Jersey, the course of study must be 
approved by the State board of education. 

Restrictions as to amount. — In Connecticut the sum granted per pupil is $2.25; in 
Maine it is two-thirds of the amount paid for instruction. In New Jersey, when 
districts raise for the maintenance of an evening school by subscription, special appro- 
priation, or special tax, a sum satisfactory to the State board of education, they receive 
an equal amount of State aid up to a maximum of $5,000 to any one district. 

TEACHING OP LOCAL HISTORY AND LOCAL GEOGRAPHY. 

In Maine when a town history combined with local geography has 
been approved by the State historian and pubhshed by the town for 
regular use in its schools, State aid is granted not exceeding one-half 
the cost of printing and binding, but in no case more then $150. 

MEDICAL INSPECTION. 

In Rhode Island any town or city providing medical inspection, 
approved by the State board of education, is entitled to receive 
annually from the State appropriation an amount equal to one-half 
of its annual expenditure for such purpose, the amount of such aid, 
however, not exceeding $250. 

IMPROVEMENT OF RURAL SCHOOL CONDITIONS. 

Through grants of State aid for the improvement of rural school 
conditions, States suggest the advisability of a reorganization, includ- 
ing the general improvement of smaller rural schools, establishment 
of graded schools, consolidation, and the transportation of school 
children. Although only 15 States^ grant special aid for this pur- 
pose, school administrators generally believe that every State would 
profit by legislation of this kind. The aims of a State in granting 
financial aid for this purpose are to furnish equal or better school 
facilities with a longer minimum school term, to secure economy of 
teacher employment, efficiency in the teaching force, and a proper 
classification of children, 

RURAL SCHOOLS. 

Legislation referring directly to grants of State aid for the im- 
provement of rural schools is found in four States.^ 

General restrictions. — The conditions attached refer, in the main, to the maintenance 
of schools for the minimum term; the erection of proper and suitable buildings and 

1 Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsia. 

2 Alabama, North Dakota, South Carolina, Wisconsin. 



28 CONTEOL OF ELEMENTAEY EDUCATION. 

their equipment; the employment of qualified teachers; and the enforcement of a 
State course of study. More specifically, in Alabama, localities are required to raise 
a certain sum by donation or subscription; in South Carolina, localities are required 
to levy and collect a special tax of 4 mills and to maintain a specified enrollment 
and attendance; in Wisconsin, they miist maintain a specified attendance. 

Restrictions as to amount. — The maximum amount granted in Alabama for the erec- 
tion of a rural schoolhouse is $200. For maintenance of schools, North Dakota grants 
$100 or $150 per school; South Carolina grants $200 or $300, the amount depending 
upon the grade of school established; and Wisconsin grants $10 per month for each 
teacher employed in rural schools of the first grade, and in i*ural schools of the second 
grade $5 per month for each teacher employed. 

GRADED SCHOOLS. 

State aid is granted for the establisliment and maintenance of 
graded schools in six States.^ 

General restrictions. — Chief among the conditions named are the maintenance of 
school for the minimum term, the enforcement of an approved course of study, the 
erection and equipment of suitable buildings, and the employment of legally quali- 
fied teachers. In Florida, a State-aided graded school must be located at least 3 miles 
from any city of 500 or more inhabitants, and in Florida and Wisconsin a certain aver- 
age attendance must be maintained. In North Dakota, in schools of the first class, 
the course of study must include two years of high-school work, and in schools both 
of the first and second classes must include courses in domestic science, and either 
manual training or elementary agriculture. 

Restrictions as to amount. — The amount of aid granted in Florida is $200 a year for 
four years. In Minnesota, the annual grant is $300 or $750, according to the class of 
schools maintained; $500 additional is granted to such schools as, in addition to meet- 
ing all the reqiiirements of a State graded school, maintain a course eqiiivalent to two 
years of high-school work and comply with certain other specified requirements. In 
North Dakota, the grant is $150 or $200, according to the class of school maintained; 
in Wisconsin, $300 or $200, according to the number of departments maintained in 
each school. In Rhode Island, $100 per school is granted when an ungraded school 
is consolidated with a graded school; and in Virginia, $200 per school when such 
school has maintained two, three, or four rooms. 

CONSOLIDATION. 

By grants of State aid, locahties are encouraged in seven States ^ 
to consohdate schools. 

General restrictions. — The conditions attached to such grants are the maintenance 
of a minimum school term, the introduction of specified subjects into the curriculum, 
the maintenance of a specified number of departments, the provision of sites, the 
erection and equipment of buildings, and the employment of legally qualified teachers. 
In Missouri, when districts are organized into a consolidated district, such consoli- 
dated district must have a certain area or a certain enumeration of school children. 

Restrictions as to amount. — The amount of aid granted in Iowa varies from $250 to 
1500 for equipment and from $200 to $750 annually for maintenance, according to 
number of rooms in the building. In Minnesota, the amount of aid granted is $1,500, 
$1,000, or $750, according to the class of school; in addition aid in the construction of 

» Florida, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin. 

' Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin. 



STATE AID. 29 

a building equal to 25 per cent of its cost may be granted, not exceeding $1,500. In 
North Dakota, |600 or $500 is granted, according to the class of school, when consoli- 
dated schools meet the requirements of State graded schools. In Missouri, when a 
consolidated district has secured a suitable site and erected thereon a central building 
according to law and has complied with other conditions, the State pays one-fourth 
of the cost of such building and equipment within a maximum of $2,000 to any one 
district. In Oklahoma, to districts which have constructed and furnished a suitable 
building, and which have complied with certain other conditions, aid is granted, 
within a maximum of $1,500, to an amount not exceeding one-half the cost of said 
building. In Tennessee, to encourage the establishment of consolidated schools and 
to provide transportation, a part of 10 per cent of the general education fund is appro- 
priated by the State. In Wisconsin, when two or more rural districts or subdistricts 
consolidate, aid for the purpose of partially defraying the cost of erecting and equip- 
ping a school building is granted in amounts varying from $500 to $5,000, according 
to type and size of the school maintained. 

TRANSPORTATION. 

State aid is granted in four States ^ for transportation, board, and 
tuition of school childi*en. 

General restrictions. — So far as conditions are concerned, in New Jersey and New 
York, aid is granted to a certain amount if the locality dispenses with the services of 
a teacher, and to a different amount if the district maintains its own school; in New 
York, the term must be at least 160 days; in Wisconsin, the average attendance of 
pupils transported to a one-department or two-department rural school, or to a school 
containing the grades below the free high school, must be at least 80 per cent of the 
entire number of children em-oUed for transportation for a term of at least 32 weeks. 

Restrictions as to amount. — In regard to amount, in three of the States a certain sum 
annually is granted; New Jersey grants $200 per district when a teacher is dispensed 
with, or 75 per cent of the cost of transportation when a district does not close its school; 
New York, $125 to $200 according to the valuation of property within the district, when 
a district closes its school; and the maximum sum of $25 per pupil when a home school 
is maintained and at least 12 children are transported. In Vermont, the amount 
granted is dependent upon the tax raised and expended by localities. In Wisconsin, 
the grant is 5 cents a day for each pupil outside the 2-mile limit transported to a dis- 
trict school; 10 cents a day for each pupil outside the 2-mile limit transported within 
a consolidated district; or $150 annually to each rural school district or subdistrict 
closing the district or subdistrict school and transporting the pupils to a one-depart- 
ment or two-department rural school, or a school containing the grades below the free 
high school; or $200 when two or more school districts maintaining one-department 
rural schools consolidate and establish a State graded school of the first or second class, 
transporting the children thereto. 

INCEEASE IN AVERAGE LENGTH OF SCHOOL TERM. 

One State, South Carolina, grants aid annually for the purpose of 
increasing the average length of the school term to at least 100 days 
when the regular school fund is insufficient to maintam school for 
that period of time. Within a maximum of $100 per school annually, 
the amount granted equals the amount raised by special taxation. 
The request for such aid must meet with the approval both of the 
county superintendent and of the State superintendent. 

1 New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Wisconsin. 



30 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

teachers' INSTITUTES. 

In order to encourage the holding of teachers' institutes, State 
aid is granted in four States.^ A union of towns for institute pur- 
poses is encouraged in both Kansas and Massachusetts by grants of 
State aid. 

General restrictions. — In Michigan aid is granted only when institute funds are 
insufficient to meet necessary expenses, no other conditions being attached thereto; 
in Kansas, teachers must pay a registration fee; in Massachusetts the annual meeting 
must be not less than one day; in North Dakota, the aid granted must be used exclu- 
sively for salaries of conductors and lecturers appointed by the State superintendent. 

Restrictions as to amount. — The amount of aid granted in Kansas is $50; to a union, 
$50 for each county represented; in Massachusetts $50 is also granted, and to a union 
not exceeding $350. In North Dakota a sum of $100 is granted to each county for 
institute purposes. 

DISCUSSION. 

The intention of a State in granting State aid is to improve public 
schools by a combination of State and local support. In the main, 
the purposes for which State aid is proffered are not those which are 
commonly regarded as necessities, but rather as extensions of ele- 
mentary school work. Like many other educational innovations, 
such extensions have become a part of school activity tlu-ough the 
initiative of the richer localities, which are able to introduce and 
mamtain them independently of any State aid. Less prosperous 
localities, in their endeavor to gain equal advancement, may have 
realized the wisdom of providing a certain amount of money for such 
purposes and of then applying to the State for an additional amount; 
or a State, conscious of existing inequalities in educational oppor- 
tunities and actuated by broad interests, may have proffered aid to 
localities that were wilHng to join in a movement for increasing the 
efficiency of their elementary schools. In State aid as granted, the 
conditions imposed are not unduly burdensome, yet the enforcement 
of the conditions tends to arouse a permanent interest in school 
improvement. Such action on the part of a State necessarily im- 
plies central control. The form of control presented, however, is 
tolerant. Localities are in no instance compelled to accept State 
aid, but if they do accept, then the conditions attached become 
operative. In other words, the rather high degree of centralization 
involved in the usually stringent conditions is modified in practice 
by voluntary participation on the part of localities. In view of 
these facts and of tlie relative importance and distribution of the 
various purposes for which State aid is granted in the 33 States 
having any provision for State aid, the standard can not be regarded 
as showing conclusively either centralization or localization, but 
rather a division of control, with the odds in favor of localization. 

1 Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota. 



STATE AID. 



31 





sa^nijiisni ,si9iioi39x 
















X 




XX 








; ; ; ; ;x : ; ; 






lOOTios JO q:jgu9i ni eSBejoui 




































X : : ; : : 




1 

o 

ii 

|i 

1 
> 
o 

1 

1— ! 


•noT^'E^^.iodsu'BJx 


































:x :x ; : : : : 


j : :x : : 


X 


•nopBpHOsnoo 














X 










X 


X ; ; : 


; ; : : ;x :x : 


;x : I : : 


X 


•SlOOqOS P9PB.TO' 








X 
















X 






; j : : :x : :x 


: : : ;x ; 


X 


•siooqos {B-my; 


X 






























; : : : ;x : : ; 


X : : I : : 


X 


1 

h 

n 

ft® 
^ >^ 

i 

"3 


•uoj'joedsnT iBOipgpi 


































: I : i : : I :x 






•jfqdBj^'o 
-93 puB Aaoisiq 
IBOOi JO SoiijOB'aj. 
pnB noi^Biidraoo 


















X 




















•spoqDS SnineAg; 






X 










X 














'x : : i : : : : 






•uajp 
-n^o p9iddi.io 
puB 'pmiq 'jBgp 

JOJ SJOOrjOS jfBQ 
























X 








; ; : : :x : ; 




X 


•SnttriB.n iBnuBTH 
Smpnjoni 'noji 
-Bo'npa ib'uoi:jb6oa 












X 




XX 




X 




X : : 


' : ; ; :x : :x 


:x :x : : 


X 




•noisiAj9dns noinfi 






X 










X 


X 








; ; ;> 


ex ;x ; ; : ix 


; : :x : ; 




•nois 
-lAjadns joiJ^sip 
JO 'nmo; 'i^nhoQ 






X 










X 














X ;x : : : ;x 


jx ;x : : 




•8^X9^ 99 J J 






























X : : : 








■sesnomooqos 
gmqsiumj puB Sm^oeja 


































:x ; : : ; : ; 






•S9irejqi[ looqog 


X 


X 












X 




X 






X :xx : ; :x 


XX : :x : 




Employment 
of qualified 
teachers and 
payment to 
them of a min- 
imum salary. 


•Ajbibs 
mnnitnipj; 




X 




























: : : : :x ;x 


; ;x : ix 




•319^01395. 

pggjlBu^ 


























X 




; ; :>< 






X 


•S9§b;iibapb jBnoii'Bonpe 
JO noiiBzij'Bnb9 Sutpnio 
-ui 'sjootjos JO 9onBn9;uii3pf 




XX 


XX 


XX 








xxxxx 


:x :x : j :x 


ix ;x ;x 






la 




< 


o 
O 


c 


t: 
1 


o 

03 
M 


J 

•a 

M 


i 

t—t 


I 

M 


J 



03 


a 
1 


b 


c 

n 
e 


1 

ii 


1 

Eg 


Montana 

Nebraska 

Nevada 

New TTamnshire. _ 


New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina... 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Rhode Island 


Tennessee 

Utah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

West Virginia 


3 

3 



32 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

IV. RESTRICTIONS UPON THE RIGHT OF LOCALITIES TO BORROW 
MONEY AND TO ISSUE BONDS. 

Under the American system of education the successful administra- 
tion of pubhc schools depends largely upon the spirit of independence 
and enterprise possessed by the various localities, and upon their 
readiness to assume financial responsibility. Recognizing these facts, 
nearly all the States^ have adopted legislation authorizing localities to 
borrow money and to issue bonds for school purposes. This form of 
participation in the financial support of public schools is not made 
compulsory upon localities by the States ; nevertheless there is mani- 
fest a very general desire on the part of the former to provide types of 
schools representative of community interests. In order to accom- 
pHsh this aim, it is often necessary for localities to borrow money and 
to issue bonds, because limited State appropriations and the proceeds 
of local taxation do not afford revenue sufficient for the introduction 
and maintenance of the superior educational advantages which a large 
number of the more progressive localities desire. Furthermore, the 
amount of taxes necessary to be raised in any one year for certain pur- 
poses may be deemed by local school authorities to be burdensome; 
the borrowing of money or the issuing of bonds tends to distribute the 
burden of taxation and to provide for immediate needs. Therefore we 
find that 44 of the 48 States authorize localities to borrow money and 
to issue bonds. In 3 of these States — North Carolina, Virginia, and 
Wisconsin — ^loans are made to localities from the State school fund. 

In borrowing money and issuing bonds, localities are restricted by 
State legislation. Such restrictions may name (1) the persons author- 
ized to borrow money or issue bonds, (2) the purpose for which money 
thus raised may be expended, (3) the amount that may be borrowed, 
(4) the period for which bonds may run, (5) the denomination in which 
bonds may be issued, (6) the rate of interest they must bear, (7) the 
selling price they must command, (8) how the sinking fund for their 
redemption must be cared for, (9) the conditions under wliich States 
proffer loans to localities, and (10) other details. 

AUTHORITY. 

The first detail of restriction deals with the designation by central 
authority of the persons ultimately responsible for authorizing the 
borrowing of money and the issuing of bonds. This policy is common 
to 41 States. In 28 States ^ such responsibdity is vested solely in legal 
voters; in 8 States,^ in legal voters who are taxpayers; in 3 States,* 
either in legal voters or in school trustees, according to the purpose 

1 Except Alabama, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts. 

2 Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, ^'irginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 
Wyoming. 

3 Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Utah. 
^ Georgia, Idaho, Ohio. 



RESTRICTIONS UPON BORROWING MONEY. 33 

for which or the district in which bonds are to be issued ; in 1 State/ 
in school trustees alone; in 1 State, ^ either in the township trustee 
upon authorization of the township advisory board, or in school trus- 
tees, according to the kind of school unit concerned. 

Although legal voters most frequently have the actual power as to 
the issuing of bonds, yet in a number of States where this is so, local 
school authorities are intrusted with certain minor powers, such as 
preparing an estimate of the probable amount of money needed, as in 
Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, and Ohio. In Arkansas, for erecting 
and equipping school buildings in special school districts, boards of 
directors prescribe conditions and regulations as to amount, time, and 
manner of payment of bonds. In Michigan, before bonds may be 
issued, the school board must pass upon the legality of the proceedings 
in voting the bonds. In Iowa the school board may not attempt to 
defeat the wish of the voters clearly expressed, yet a vote to issue 
bonds is regarded somewhat as permissive authority. In New York 
(in union free-school districts for building schoolhouses) and in Mis- 
souri, local school authorities may issue bonds for a less sum than 
the amount authorized by vote. In New Mexico, when a school dis- 
trict does not own a schoolhouse, the county superintendent has power 
upon a petition signed by 20 residents to order the school directors to 
submit the question of issuing bonds for such purpose to the voters. 

In the States in which bonds are issued on vote of the electors or of 
the voting taxpayers a notice must be given either by the district 
itself or by local school authorities stating the time of election, the 
amount of money to be raised, the purpose or purposes for which 
bonds are to be issued, the rate of interest thereon, and the number 
of years they are to run. Although the issuing of original bonds is 
vested primarily in legal voters, the power of renewing, extending, 
and replacing bonds is generally vested in school trustees. For 
example, when school sites are to be purchased, schoolhouses erected, 
furnished, repaired, etc., the people must vote upon the question; 
but if it becomes necessary to refund bonds abeady authorized by the 
people, local school authorities have the power to take such action. 
It should also be noted that in some of these States, although the 
legal voters must pass upon the original issue of permanent bonds, a 
school board, in addition to the power of renewing, extending, and 
replacing such bonds, has original power to issue temporary bonds or 
warrants in anticipation of its regular income from taxes. 

PURPOSE. 

Another restriction attached to the borrowing of money or the 
issuing of bonds is the designation by States of the purpose for which 
money thus raised may be expended. This restriction holds in all of 

1 Pennsylvania. 2 Indiana. 

90757°— 15— 3 



34 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 



the 44 States authorizing the borrowhig of money or the issuing of 
bonds. The most common of the purposes designated are the pur- 
chase, condemnation, and improvement of sites; the erection, repair, 
and furnishing of schoolhouses; the building of additions thereto; the 
maintenance of schools; and the refunding of bonds. Tlje least fre- 
quent purposes are the payment of teachers' salaries; the introduc- 
tion and maintenance of school Ubraries and vocational education, 
including manual training; the estabUshment of a school of detention; 
the estabUshment and maintenance of playgrounds and gymnasiums; 
the insurance of school property; and the meeting of unusual condi- 
tions. The following chart shows in detail these purposes, as specified 
by the various States: 

Survey of purposes for which vfioney marj he borrowed and bonds issued. 



States. 


1 


1 
1 

1 

s 


3 
o 

"o 

.a 

a 


1 

o 
o 

-a 


i 

o 

1 

B 
"S 

a 

3 


1 

o 

s 

CI 
a) 

B 


1 

a; 

.El 


1-1 

1 

xi 

o 


t 

■a 

3 

1 

^3 

o 
> 


c 
_o 

3 

o 
•3 

o 
o 


i 

1 

1 

>. 

■3 

§ 

■3 

a 

1 


p- 

"3 
o 

"o 
o 
o 

3 


1 

g 

o 

"3 

3 
3 

1 

ho 

.a 

a; 


11 

11. 

|o.g 




X 


X 
X 
X 
X 






X 
X 
X 
X 


















X 
























X 




X 
X 


X 


X 














X 


X 


X 
















X 
























X 






X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

^ 

X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 


X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 




















Florida 


X 


X 
















X 




X 
















Idaho 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 












X 






X 




X 
X 
X 


















X 


Indiana 


X 
X 




















X 




X 


















X 


Kansas 


















X 




X 




X 


X 
X 
X 


















Louisiana 




















X 
X 






X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 














X 


Minnesota 


X 
X 
X 


X 

" x" 


X 














Mississippi 


X 

"x ' 
















Missouri 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 














X 


Montana 














X 


Nebraska 




















X 


Nevada 






X 






X 










X 


New Hampshire 


X 
X 


x" 










X 




X 


New Jersey 


X 








X 




X 


New Mexico 














X 


New York 


X 
X 


x 




















X 


North Carolina 






















North Dakota 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 




X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


















X 


Ohio 


X 


X 


















X 


Oklahoma 


















X 


Oregon 


X 
X 


"x" 


















X 


Pennsylvania 


X 
















X 


Rhode Island 
















X 


South Carolina 




X 
X 
X 
X 
X 






x 

X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
















X 


South Dakota 


X 
X 
X 
X 


"x" 

X 


X 
















X 


Tennessee 


















X 


Texas 


















X 


Utah 


X 
X 
















X 


Vermont 






















Virginia 




X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 




X 
X 
X 


















Washington 


X 


















X 


West Virginia 


X 


x 




















Wisconsin 


X 


X 


X 












X 


X 


Wyoming 






X 












X 





























RESTEICTIONS UPON BOEEOWING MONEY. 35 

AMOUNT. 

Restriction is also placed upon the total amount of bonded or other 
indebtedness which may be incurred by localities. Such restriction 
occurs in 33 States and may be expressed in terms of dollars, in a cer- 
tain percentage of the valuation of taxable property, or in a combi- 
nation of such terms. 

These limitations are as follows : 

In Arizona, 6 per cent. In California, 5 per cent. In Colorado, 5 per cent in 
districts of the first and second classes and 3 J per cent in districts of the third class. 
In Idaho, for building and furnishing schoolhouses, 4 per cent; for sites, buildings, 
and furnishing schoolhouses in independent .districts, 5 per cent. In Illinois, 5 per 
cent. In Indiana, 2 per cent; for constructing and equipping a room or building in 
which to teach the arts of agriculture, domestic science, or physical or practical 
mental culture, or for general township use, 1 per cent. In Iowa, IJ per cent; for 
building and furnishing schoolhouses in independent districts, 4 per cent. In Kan- 
sas, for erecting and purchasing schoolhouses, IJ per cent, except that upon petition 
of at least one-half of the number of electors entitled to vote the State board of school 
fund commissioners may, for the purpose of erecting buildings, authorize a school 
district to vote bonds to an amount of 50 per cent in excess of 1| per cent, or a total 
of 21 per cent; for the refunding of outstanding debt no bonds may be issued where 
the total indebtedness of such school district or board of education would thereby 
exceed 1| per cent of the assessment for taxation. In Kentucky, in cities, 2 per 
cent; in common graded school districts, $150,000. In Louisiana, 10 per cent. In 
Michigan, 10 per cent; in districts having 100 or more census children, $100 per 
capita of such census. In Mississippi, 5 per cent. In Missoitti, 5 per cent. In 
Montana, for pmchasing sites and buildings and equipping schoolhouses, 3 per cent, 
but not exceeding $500,000 (one district in the State excepted). In Nebraska, in 
districts having 100 or more children of school age, such a rate as may be agreed upon, 
not to exceed 12 per cent of the assessed valuation; in smaller districts, not to exceed 
5 per cent, such maximum rate being subject, however, to the maximum amount in 
dollars hereafter stated; in districts having 50 or more children of school age but 
less than 100, $5,000; in districts having 25 or more children of school age, but less 
than 50, $2,000; in districts having 12 or more children of school age but less than 
25, $500; in districts having less than 12 cliildren of school age no bonds may be 
issued. 

In New Jersey for purchasing sites, erecting buildings, etc., 3 per cent; for estab- 
lishing a school of detention, one-half of 1 per cent of the ratables of the county. 
In New Mexico, 4 per cent. In New York (special school districts), 5 per cent. In 
North Dakota, 5 per cent. In Oklahoma, 5 per cent. In Oregon, 5 per cent. In 
Pennsylvania (except in districts of the first class), 7 per cent; in school districts 
having no indebtedness or whose indebtedness is less than 2 per cent, a temporary 
debt may be incurred in districts of the first and second classes not exceeding two- 
tenths of 1 per cent, and in school districts of the third and fourth classes, one-half 
of 1 per cent, provided that in both cases the v/hole school-district indebtedness 
does not exceed 2 per cent. In Rhode Island, 3 per cent, the giving of a 
new note or bond for a preexisting debt, or for money borrowed and appUed to 
such debt, excepted, and the amount of any sinking fund having been deducted 
in computing such indebtedness. In South Carolina, 4 per cent. In South 
Dakota not more than $2,500 for any one schoolhouse, except in towns or 
villages of more than 100 inhabitants, where 4 per cent is the limit; when two 
or more schools are consolidated, $4,000, within a limit of 4 per cent; in inde- 
pendent districts of at least 100 inhabitants, 5 per cent. In Tennessee for all public 



36 CONTEOL OP ELEMENTAEY EDUCATION. 

improvements, including the erection and equipment of schoolliouses, 20 per cent. 
In Texas the aggregate amount of bonds must never reach such an amount that a tax 
of 25 cents on the $100 will not pay current interest and provide an adequate sinking 
fund. In Utah, 4 per cent. In Virginia, 18 per cent.' In Washington, 5 per cent. 
In West Virginia, 5 per cent, including, in any district of 300 or more children of 
school age, 2^ per cent for school buildings; in city school districts, 2 J per cent, except 
in cases where such corporations have previously authorized bonds to be issued. 
In Wisconsin, 5 per cent, of which not less than two-thirds shall be secured in real 
estate and not exceeding in any case $25,000. In Wyoming, 2 per cent. 

Generally, funding or refunding bonds may not exceed in amount 
the face value of the bonds they are issued to replace, although in 
some States the amount of interest due may be included in the 
new issue, 

A minor restriction also dealing with the total amount of indebt- 
edness which localities may incur takes the form of permissive 
authority to local boards of education to borrow money or to issue 
bonds temporarily for pressing needs in amounts not exceeding all 
or a specified portion of their expected income from local taxation, 
or, as in Georgia, Michigan, and New Jersey, from the public-school 
fund. This occurs in Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, and in 11 of the States ^ 
mcluded under the major restriction just considered. 

In Georgia, county boards of education may borrow to pay teachers' salaries for 
the current school year a sum no greater than the county is entitled to receive from 
the public-school fund. In Kentucky money may be borrowed or debts contracted 
by county boards of education for school purposes not to exceed the anticipated 
revenue for school purposes for the current fiscal year. In Indiana when a gift exceed- 
ing $5,000 for erecting a public-school building in unincorporated towns is made on 
condition that an amount equal thereto shall be raised for such purpose, bonds not 
exceeding $15,000 in anticipation of the revenue for special school purposes may be 
issued; when a township is indebted beyond the ability of the current taxes to meet 
such indebtedness, bonds may be issued not exceeding in the aggregate the amount 
of such indebtedness; if an emergency exists for the expenditure of any sums not 
included in the existing estimates and levy, money may be borrowed in a sum suffi- 
cient to meet such emergency and a levy be made to pay the debt so created. In 
Iowa, when a schoolhouse tax has been voted, the board may anticipate the levy 
and collection and issue orders to build. In Michigan, when a tax has been voted 
and money is needed before the tax can be collected, money may be borrowed on 
the strength of such tax not exceeding the total of such tax; further, when any defi- 
ciency is caused in the teachers' salary fund by the changing of the date of the 
apportionment of the primary-school interest fund, money may be borrowed or bonds 
issued for the sum of such deficiency. In Montana warrants for the payment of cur- 
rent expenses may be issued in anticipation of school moneys which have been levied 
but not collected; but such warrants shall not be drawn in excess of the sum levied. 
In Nevada, whenever the county-school fund of any district is exhausted and there 
is not enough money available for the maintenance of schools, warrants may be issued, 
but the total amount of such interest-bearing warrants outstanding and unpaid may 
not exceed the total cost of maintaining the schools for the current year nor 1 per 

1 The 18 per cent limit does not apply to those cities and towns whose charters existing at the adoption 
of the constitution authorize a larger percentage than is authorized by this section; further, certain indebt- 
edness is not to bo included in this limit. 

2 Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, South 
Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin. 



EESTEICTIONS UPON BOKEOWING MONEY. 37 

cent of the total assessed valuation of the district. In New Jersey a sum not exceed- 
ing one-half of the amount appropriated for the current expenses of the schools and 
for the repair of schoolhouses may be borrowed and promissory notes delivered there- 
for; a temporary loan may also be incurred in anticipation of the receipt of moneys 
to the extent of not exceeding 80 per cent of the amount of moneys which may be 
apportioned to such school district. In New York, union free-school districts may 
borrow money in anticipation of taxes levied but uncollected and not in excess 
thereof. In North Dakota, in independent districts, money may be borrowed 
when necessary, in anticipation of the taxes raised. In Ohio, bonds may be 
issued to obtain and improve school property in anticipation of income from taxes, 
provided no greater amount of bonds may be issued in any one year than would eqaal 
the aggregate of a tax of 2 mills for the preceding year; for remedying defects in school- 
houses which have been condemned, |5,000. In South Carolina, money may be 
borrowed for ordinary school purposes in. an amount not to exceed 75 per cent of the 
county-school tax and the taxes must be pledged for the payment of the money so 
borrowed and the interest thereon. In Utah, money may be borrowed for the main- 
tenance of schools not in excess of the taxes for the current school year; and also for 
the purchase of sites and buildings not in excess of any tax that may have been law- 
fully imposed for such purposes. In Wisconsin, money maybe borrowed for teachers' 
salaries and usual expenses in an amount not exceeding the amount of district taxes 
to be collected at the next levy. 

PERIOD. 

In addition to restricting a bond issue or the borrowing of money 
in regard to the responsible issuing authority, the purpose, and 
the amount. State legislation often limits the period for which 
money may be borrowed or bonds may run. Such restriction occurs 
in 35 States. The periods specified range from 6 months to 40 
years, so far as an original transaction is concerned; and from 10 to 
30 years for a renewal, extension, or replacement. Frequently the 
States reserve to local school authorities the power to redeem bonds 
prior to the date when due, such power to be exercised at the option 
of the school authorities, or when the sinking fund is adequate for 
the redemption of the bonds. The limitations as to the periods 
within which bonds must mature or outstanding indebtedness be 
paid are as follows : 

In Arizona, within 20 years; bonds issued to increase the indebtedness of districts 
above 4 per cent, within 40 years. In California, within 40 years. In Colorado, 
original bonds in not less than 20 nor more than 40 years; refunding bonds, within 
20 years. In Georgia, money borrowed for teachers' salaries, as soon as possible 
within the current school year. In Idaho, original bonds within 20 years; refunding 
bonds, in not less than 10 nor more than 20 years. In Illinois, within 20 years. In 
Indiana, bonds issued in incorporated towns for sites or buildings, within 1 to 10 or 
1 to 20 years, according to form of issue; bonds issued in incorporated cities and towns 
for the purpose of purchasing grounds, erecting and furnisliing school buildings, within 
25 years; bonds issued in incorporated towns having a population of not more than 
1,000 inliabitants, for sites, buildings, and repairs, within 20 years; in incorporated 
towns having a population of more than 1,000 inhabitants but less than5,000, forsites, 
buildings, and repairs, in not less than 10 nor more than 24 years; bond or note issue 
in incorporated towns having a population of not more than 2,000 inhabitants, for 
sites and buildings, within 15 years; bonds issued in incorporated towns and cities, 



38 CONTKOL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

except in cities of the first and second classes, for sites, buildings, and repairs, within 
25 years; bonds or warrants issued in townships for the construction of a school 
Iniilding when indispensably necessary, within 10 years; bonds issued in townships 
for constructing and equipping a room or building in which to teach the arts of agri- 
culture, domestic science, or physical or practical mental culture, or for general 
townsliip use, within 10 years; money borrowed in any townsliip for legalizing 
emergency school debts contracted for the erection or enlargement of a schoolhouse, 
\vithin 5 years; bonds issued in townships to cover indebtedness beyoiid the ability 
of the current taxes to meet, as evidenced by bonds, notes, or other obligations, 
within 15 years; bonds issued in unincorporated towns for erecting a school building 
to secure the benefits of a gift or bequest exceeding |5,000, in anticipation of the reve- 
nue for special school purposes, within 7 years. In Iowa, school building bonds, 10 
years, except that in independent districts having at the time of issuance of any bonds 
other bonds outstanding amounting to not less than |400,000, any bonds in excess of 
such amount may run not exceeding 20 years. In Kansas, for erecting and purchasing 
schoolhouses, within 15 years; refunding bonds, within 30 years.' In Kentucky, 
within 30 years. In Louisiana, not less than 5 nor more than 40 years. In MicMgan, 
within 15 years; money borrowed or bonds issued to meet deficiencies in teachers' 
salaries, within 5 years. In Minnesota, within 15 years. In Missouri, original bonds, 
within 20 years; funding and refunding bonds, in not less than 5 nor more than 30 
years. In Montana, original bonds, within 10 years; refunding bonds, within 20 
years. In Nebraska, within 30 years. In Nevada, within 20 years. In New Jersey, 
for the erection of a school of detention, within 20 years; bonds issued for purchasing 
sites, etc., within 30 years; renewing bonds, at such times as the legal voters shall 
direct. In New Mexico, for erecting and completing schoolhouses, in not less than 
20 nor more than 30 years; refunding bonds in cities and towns, in not less than 10 
nor more than 40 years. In New York, in common-school districts and in union free- 
school districts for sites and buildings, within 20 years; in union free-school districts, 
money borrowed to pay current expenses, within the current fiscal year or witliin 9 
months thereafter; bonds or other obligations issued in cities of the third class, vil- 
lages, town school districts, etc., for any municipal or district improvement, witliin 50 
years. In North Dakota, original bonds, in independent districts, within 25 years; in 
common-school districts, in not less than 10 nor more than 20 years; refunding bonds 
within 20 years. In Ohio, refunding bonds, within 20 years; bonds to obtain or im- 
prove school property, within 40 years. In Oklahoma, original bonds, within 20 
years; funding bonds, within 30 years.' In Oregon, not less than 10 years nor more 
than 20 years; bonds sold to the State land board, in not less than 1 nor more than 20 
years. In Pennsylvania, temporary indebtedness, witliin 2 years; bonds, within 30 
years. South Carolina, within 20 years. In South Dakota, bonds issued for purchase 
of sites, building, and furnishing schoolhouses, in not less than 3 nor more than 15 
years; in independent districts, for purchase of sites, building schoolhouses, or funding 
outstanding indebtedness, within 20 years; districts finding themselves indebted 
beyond the present constitutional limit, but within the former limit, may issue bonds 
extending the time of payment for a period not less than 3 nor more than 10 years. 
In Tennessee, in districts or municipalities of less than 100,000 inliabitants, within 30 
years. In Texas, within 20 years when issued for the erection of buildings con- 
structed of wood, and within 40 years when buildings are constructed of more sub- 
stantial material. In Utah, within 20 years. In Virginia, for erecting and improving 
schoolhouses, within 35 years. In Washington, within 20 years; in city school dis- 
tricts, within 34 years, except in cases where such corporations have previously 
authorized bonds to be issued. In West Virginia, in not less than 10 nor more than 

1 No bonded indelMeJness may be refunded except such as has been issued and outstanding at least 
2 years at the time of such refunding. 



RESTRICTIONS UPON BORROWING MONEY. 39 

34 years. In Wisconsin, money borrowed for teachers' salaries and usual school 
expenses, within 6 months; money borrowed to meet any unusual condition, within 
a year; bonds for other school purposes, within 15 years; refunding bonds, within 20 
years from the time the indebtedness was originally contracted. In Wyoming, 
original bonds, within 25 years; refunding bonds, within 30 years. 

DENOMINATION. 

Anotlier major restriction attached to the issuing of bonds refers to 
the denominations in which they may be issued. This restriction is 
imposed in 20 States/ the denominations ranging from $50 to $100,000 
per bond, as follows : 

In Michigan and Oregon, not less than $50. In New York, in special school districts 
for purchasing sites, etc., $50 or some multiple of $50. In South Dakota, $50 or some 
multiple of $50 not exceeding $200. In North Dakota, $50 or some multiple of $50. In 
Utah, $50 or some multiple of $50 not exceeding $1,000. In Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, 
Oklahoma, and Washington, not less than $100 nor more than $1,000. In Wyoming, 
refunding bonds, not less than $100. In Colorado and Montana, $100 or some multiple 
thereof. In New Mexico, for erecting and completing schoolhouses, not less than $25 
nor more than $500; in incorporated cities and towns, for the purchase of sites, not less 
than $50. In Kansas, not less than $100 nor more than $500; funding and refunding 
bonds, not less than $100 or more than $1,000. In Indiana, not less than $100 nor more 
than $1,000; funding and refunding bonds, not less than $50 nor more than $1,000; 
refunding bonds in incorporated towns of not over 2,000 inhabitants, not less than $100. 
In Oregon (bonds purchased by the State land board) and in Kentucky, not exceeding 
$10,000. In Tennessee, not less than $100 nor more than $100,000. In Louisiana, in 
a varying amount, depending upon the conditions of the bond issue. 

RATE OF INTEREST- 

Local authorities are also restricted in respect to the rate of interest 
which may be allowed upon money borrowed or bonds issued. In 39 
States 2 a maximum rate of interest is designated, ranging from the 
lowest rate obtainable to 8 per cent per annum. 

These limitations are as f oUows : 

In Georgia, money borrowed for teachers' salaries, as low a rate of interest as possible. 
In Wisconsin, 3^ per cent; money borrowed for teachers' salaries and usual school 
expenses, 7 per cent. In Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Texas, and Utah, 
5 per cent. lu Indiana, for sites, buildings, and repairs in incorporated cities and 
towns, 4f per cent; for sites, buildings, and repairs in incorporated towns of less than 
5,0Q0 inhabitants, 5 per cent; for the same purpose in incorporated towns and cities, 
except cities of the first and second classes, 5 per cent; for the same purpose in towns 
having not more than 2,000 inhabitants, 6 per cent; for constructing a school building 
in townships, when indispensably necessary, 8 per cent; for funding or refunding 
indebtedness in townships, 6 per cent; for the same purpose in incorporated towns or 
cities, 4 per cent; to meet the conditions of a gift or bequest for erecting a school build- 

1 Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New 
Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and 
Wyoming. 

2 Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ken- 
tucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hamp- 
shire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 
Wyoming. 



40 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

ing in incorporated towns, 7 per cent; for erecting a sclioolliouse for a joint graded 
school upon authorization of the voters residing in incorporated towns or cities of the 
fifth class and of the voters residing in the same township but outside such city or town, 
4J per cent. In North Dakota, 5 per cent; funding or refunding bonds, 6 per cent. 
In Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, 6 per 
cent. In Iowa, school-building bonds, 6 per cent; certain other bonds, 5 per cent_ 
In New Jersey, 6 per cent; bonds issued for a school of detention or money 
borrowed by a township committee for the maintenance of schools, 5 per cent. In 
New Mexico, original bonds, 6 per cent; refunding bonds, 5 per cent. In West Vir- 
ginia, in districts having an enumeration of youth of school age of 300 or more, 6 per 
cent. In Minnesota and South Dakota, 7 per cent. In Illinois, common-school dis- 
trict bonds, 7 per cent; special school-district bonds, 5 per cent. In Oklahoma, orig- 
inal bonds, 7 per cent; funding bonds, 6 per cent. In South Carolina, original bonds, 
8 per cent; money borrowed to repay school claims, 7 per cent. In Colorado, in dis- 
tricts of the third class and for refunding bonds in all districts, not exceeding 8 per 
cent; in districts of the first and second classes, 6 per cent. In Florida and Michigan, 
8 per cent. In Missouri, 8 per cent; funding and refunding bonds, 8 per cent or 5 per 
cent, according to conditions. In Oregon, at a rate not exceeding legal interest. In 
Pennsylvania, money borrowed as a temporary' debt, not exceeding the legal rate of 
interest. 

SELLING PRICE. 

Restrictions are also placed by 29 States ^ upon the selling price of 
bonds. In 25 of these States there is provision that bonds of any 
description may not be sold for less than par or less than par with 
accrued interest ; in the remaining 4 States bonds may or may not be 
sold for less than par, according to the conditions or nature of the 
bonds. 

Bonds may not be sold for less than par or less than par with accrued interest. — In Ari- 
zona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsyl- 
vania (for payment of temporary indebtedness), South Carolina, South Dakota, Ten- 
nessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. 

Bonds may or may not he sold for less than par, according to conditions or nature of 
bonds. — In Indiana, for a bond issue not exceeding $50,000 in incorporated cities and 
towns for sites or buildings, at not less than 94 cents on the dollar; in unincorporated 
districts, to meet the conditions of a gift or bequest of $5,000 or more for a school build- 
ing, at not less than 95 cents on the dollar; other bonds in all other districts, at not less 
than par. In Kansas, for school buildings, at not less than 95 cents on the dollar; 
funding and refunding bonds, at not less than par. In Missouri, for sites and buildings 
and for refunding bonds, at not less than 90 cents on the dollar; refunding bonds under 
certain conditions, at not less than par. In New Mexico, for buildings, at not less than 
90 cents on the dollar; refunding bonds, at not less than par. 

CARE OF THE SINKING FUND. 

Another form of restriction deals with the manner of taking care of 
the sinking fund for the redemption of bonds. The laws of the States 
legislating in this particular very generally designate that the sinking 

1 Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Now Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn- 
sylviuiia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming, 



EESTEICTIONS UPON BOEEOWING MONEY. 41 

fund is to be used in purchasing outstanding bonds, or invested in 
bonds of the State or some unit thereof, or of the United States. A 
few States permit investment in securities of other States or of units 
in other States. A less general provision is that the sinking fund may 
be invested in first mortgages on real estate at a stated percentage of 
its assessed value. In a few States there are restrictions concerning 
the rate of interest that must be realized from the investment of the 
sinking fund. A still less frequent provision is that the sinking fund 
may be deposited in approved banks. In all, 17 States legislate in 
regard to the care of the sinking fund. 

In Colorado, the sinking fund may be used, first, in the retirement of outstanding 
bonds; second, as nearly as possible, in investments in United States bonds or State 
bonds of Colorado. 

In Idaho, the sinking fund may be invested in United States bonds, State bonds, 
county bonds, or county or State warrants, when the market value thereof is not below 
par; it may also be invested in first mortgages on improved farm lands, but such loans 
may not exceed one-third of the market value of the land, exclusive of improvements 
thereon, given as security, and must yield an annual interest of 7 per cent. 
• In Kansas, the sinking fund must be invested in the bonds of the same district, in 
the bonds of any county, township, city or other school district, or in bonds of Kansas 
or of the United States. Other conditions attached to the purchase of county, town- 
ship, city, or school-district bonds are the following: First, bonds purchased must be 
certified by the attorney general of the State as acceptable security under the State 
depository law; second, they must mature and become due prior to the time fixed for 
the payment of the bonds for which the sinking fund was created; third, the sinking 
fund may not be invested in the bonds of any county, township, city, or school district 
whose bonded and floating indebtedness exceeds 10 per cent of its assessed valuation; 
fourth, no premium may be paid for any bonds purchased which will have the effect 
of reducing the annual income from the investment to less than 3 per cent. 

In Minnesota, the sinking fund may not be used to jjurchase bonds issued to aid in 
the construction of any railroad; it may be invested in State bonds of any State, or in 
he bonds of any county, school district, city, town, or village in Minnesota, provided 
that such investments yield a rate of income of not less than SJ per cent per annum for 
the whole period elapsing before maturity. 

In Missouri, the general school law of the State is that the sinking fund must be used 
to purchase outstanding bonds; if these can not be obtained, then the sinking fund is 
to be invested in bonds of the United States or of Missouri, or, at the discretion of the 
board of school directors, it may be loaned in the same manner and subject to the same 
restrictions as township school funds are loaned until outstanding bonds can be ob- 
tained. In districts under township organization, the sinking fund may be invested 
in first mortgages on real estate of at least double the value of the amount loaned for a 
period not beyond the maturity of the district's indebtedness, at not less than 4 per 
cent nor more than 8 per cent interest per annum; in addition, the board of school 
directors may require from the borrower a bond from one or more solvent sureties. 

In Montana, with the surplus of the sinking fund when the same is |1,000 or more, 
boards of school trustees may purchase outstanding bonds; if such bonds can not be 
purchased, then the sinking fund must be invested in interest-bearing bonds of the 
United States or of the State of Montana. 

In Nebraska, the sinking fund must be used, first, in redeeming outstanding bonds; 
after this it may be invested, in the order stated, in registered bonds of the county in 
which the district is situated, in the bonds of the State of Nebraska, or in United States 
bonds. 



42 CONTROL OF ELEMENTAKV EDUCATION. 

In North Dakota, in common-school districts, the sinking fund may be used to pur- 
chase outstanding bonds or may be deposited in National or State banks located in the 
county and furnishing bonds in at least double the probable amount of deposits, at the 
discretion of school boards. In special and independent districts the sinking fund 
may be used to i>urchaoe outstanding bonds, or may be invested in the bonds of North 
Dakota or of the United States, or may be deposited in National or State banks subject 
to the same restrictions as in common-school districts; in addition, in special school 
districts the sinking funds may be invested in first mortgages on farm lands for a period 
of time not exceeding 10 years and at a rate of interest not less than G per cent per 
annum, said interest to become a part of the sinking fund, provided such loans may be 
made only on cultivated lands which have an appraised value of at least |7.50 an acre, 
and then in sums not in excess of 40 per cent of the appraised value of such lands. 

In Ohio, the sinking fund may be used for the purchase of outstanding indebtedness 
or may be invested in bonds of the United States, of Ohio, or of any municipal corpo- 
ration, county, township, or school district of any State. 

In Oklahoma, the sinking fund may be used to purchase outstanding bonds of the dis- 
trict when such bonds may be purchased at or below par; or it may be invested in 
bonds or warrants of Oklahoma or of any county, city, town, township, school district, 
or other municipality thereof; or in any public-building warrants maturing prior to 
the date of bonded indebtedness for the payment of which any such sinking fund is 
created. 

In Pennsylvania, the sinking fund may be invested in bonds of the United States, 
of Pennsylvania, or of any county, city, borough, township, or school district of Penn- 
sylvania, or in any bonds in which savings banks of Pennsylvania are authorized by 
law to invest their deposits, and not otherwise. 

In South Carolina, the sinking fund must be deposited in some savings institution 
or bank approved by the board of school trustees at the best rate of interest that can be 
obtained. 

In South Dakota, the sinking fund must be used to purchase outstanding bonds; 
otherwise it must be invested in bonds of South Dakota or of the United States. 

In Tennessee, in municipalities or taxing districts having a sinking fund commission 
the sinking fund is to be used to retire maturing bonds; in municipalities or taxing 
districts having no sinking fund commission the mayor or other princijjal officer, with 
the approval of the recorder, treasurer, or city clerk, loans the sinking fund upon first 
mortgage real estate security in an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of the cash value 
thereof, the interest to be added semiannually to the sinking fund. 

In Texas, the sinking fund may be used to purchase outstanding bonds or may be 
invested in bonds of the United States, of Texas, or of counties, cities, towns, and 
independent school districts within the State of Texas which have been approved by 
the attorney general. 

In Utah, the sinking fund must be used, first, to redeem bonds maturing during the 
year; second, the remainder must be invested in bonds of Utah, or of any school dis- 
trict, town, city, or county thereof, or of the United States. 

In Washington, the sinking fund may be used to purchase outstanding bonds or may 
be invested in school, county, or State warrants of Washington, at the discretion of 
school boards. 

STATE LOANS TO LOCALITIES. 

Loans proffered by State authorities for the purpose of assisting 
locaUties to erect schoolhouses are rigidly restricted in each of the 
three States in which money is so proffered. Precautions are taken 
to secure the safety of the loans; the loans must yield a stated rate 



RESTRICTIOlSrS UPON BORROWING MONEY. 43 

of interest; and they must be repaid in installments within a specified 
number of years. 

In North Carolina, loans from the State literary fund for the purpose of erecting 
schoolhouses may be made by the State board of education to a county board of edii- 
cation; such loans bear 4 per cent annual interest, constitute a lien upon all county 
school funds, must be repaid in 10 equal installments, and are subject to such regula- 
tions as the State board of education may adopt. Under the same provisions as to 
purpose, interest, and repayment, county boards may reloan such money to school 
districts. 

In Virginia, loans from the State literary fund for the purpose of erecting school- 
honses may be made by the State board of education to district or city school boards 
under certain conditions: Fii'st, the plans, estimated cost, location of buildings, and 
advisability must be passed upon by the State board and the State superintendent; 
second, the building erected must cost at least $250; third, the amount loaned may 
not exceed 50 per cent of the cost of the building; fourth, the State fund loaned must 
be fully protected against loss; fifth, when the loan does not exceed $3,000 it must 
bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum, and when it does exceed $3,000, up 
to a maximum of $10,000, at the rate of 5 per cent; sixth, loans must be repaid in 15 
annual installments. 

In Wisconsin, loans for the purpose of erecting schoolhouses may be made to school 
districts by the State land commissioners from the State trust funds. Such loans 
must be ratified by the people at an election in which all the formalities of the law 
have been fully complied with, must not exceed $25,000, and in no case (including 
all other outstanding indebtedness) exceed 5 per cent of the assessed valuation of prop- 
erty within the district (not less than two-thirds of which valuation must be on real 
estate), must bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum, and must be repaid in 
annual installments within 15 years. 

OTHER RESTRICTIONS RELATING TO BOND ISSUES. 

Certain other restrictions imposed by States upon localities con- 
cerning the issuing of bonds tend to bring local authority more 
directly into contact with State authority, thus increasing central 
control. Such restrictions include the required redemption of bonds 
or interest coupons at the State treasury; registration of bonds or' 
approval of their legality, or both, by a designated State official; and 
the reservation by the State of the preferential right to purchase 
bonds upon stipulated conditions. In all, 10 States^ have adopted 
such restrictions. 

Redemption of bonds or interest coupons at the State treasury. — In Kansas, at least 10 
days before the maturity of any bonds or coupons, the treasurer of the school district 
concerned must remit to the State treasury, where all bonds and interest are payable, 
an amount sufficient to redeem any bonds or interest thereon falling due. 

Registration or approval of the legality of bonds by a designated State official: — In Ari- 
zona, if local authorities fail to make the levy necessary to pay any bond or interest 
at maturity, and payment has actually been refused, the owner of the bond may file 
it with the State auditor, who registers it and gives his receipt therefor; thereupon 
the State board of equalization adds to the State tax to be levied in such district a rate 
sufficient to realize the amount of principal or interest past due, and when such tax 

lArizona, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas. 



44 CONTEOL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, 

has been levied and collected, pays the proceeds to the owner of the bond in question. 
In Colorado, bonds issued by school districts mtist be registered, when issued, by the 
State auditor, thus establishing the legality of stich bonds against contests by the dis- 
trict or any person or corporation on behalf of the district for any reason whatever. 
In Louisiana, all bonds, after the lapse of the period of contestability as to validity — 
60 days from the date of the promiilgation of the result of the election authorizing the 
issuing of such bonds — must be registered by the secretary of state. In New Jersey, 
certified copies of the proceedings authorizing the isstiing of bonds must be trans- 
mitted to the attorney general for his approval of the legality of such proceedings, and 
duplicate copies of siich proceedings must be filed with the State commissioner of 
education. In Texas, before bonds are sold, they mtist be examined by the attorney 
general of the State and registered by the controller of public accounts. In Mis- 
souri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma, in order to be valid, bonds must be registered with 
the State auditor and certified by him to the effect that all proceedings attached to the 
issue have been regular. 

Reservation by the State of the right to purchase bonds upon stipulated conditions. — In 
Kansas, all school bonds must first be offered to the State school fund commission, 
which has the option of ptirchasing them at not more than par. In New Jersey, no 
school bonds may be sold at private sale to persons other than the trustees of the school 
fund or to the sinking fund commissioners for the support of public schools, unless 
such trustees or sinking fund commissioners have refused to buy them; the sale price 
of such bonds may never be less than par, nor the rate of interest in excess of 5 per 
cent. In Oregon, all school bonds m\ist first be offered to the State land board, which 
has the right to purchase them at not more than their par value, at a rate of interest 
not less than 5 per cent per annum. In Texas, the State board of education has an 
option of 10 days in which to i^urchase school bonds at the price offered for such bonds 
by the best bona fide bidder. 

DISCUSSION. 

The analysis of this standard shows that original power in regard 
to borrowing money and issuing bonds resides with the locahties, no 
State in the Union niakmg such action mandatory. The fact that 
locahties have the right to borrow money and to issue bonds, or not, 
as they prefer, indicates localization. In the exercise of this power, 
however, localities are very closely restricted by nearly all of the 44 
States in which localities are authorized to borrow money or to issue 
bonds. It is true that these restrictions are inoperative so long as 
localities do not exercise their power; nevertheless, in actual prac- 
tice, the necessity for borrowing money or issuing bonds is wide- 
spread, and therefore, although the first impression gained from a 
study of the standard might seem to indicate localization, yet a closer 
analysis of the nature and frequency of the restrictions really indi- 
cates centralization. The extent of this centralization is increased 
when a State reserves the right to purchase local bonds, requires 
their redemption at the State treasury, or demands that they be reg- 
istered by State officials and become a part of State records. The 
conditional loaning of money by the State to localities, points, in a 
degree, toward a form of State control bordering upon the paternal. 

State control within the scope of this standard is no doubt due to a 
desire on the part of tlie States to protect the interests of public 



STATE EEGULATION OP LOCAL TAXES, 



45 



education. While the burden of increased taxation is immediately 
felt and often resented by taxpayers, the ease with which obligations 
may be thrust forward upon future generations usually causes a pro- 
posed loan or bond issue to meet with popular favor. Wilh a large 
sum of money so easily obtained on hand, a strong temptation to 
unwise expenditure is presented to school officers. To offset this, 
the States impose restrictions not so severe as to prevent localities 
from mcurring indebtedness for necessary school purposes, but yet 
severe enough to make them cautious in the exercise of their preroga- 
tive. 

Summary of restrictions attached to the borrowing of money and the issuing of bonds. 



States. 


Author- 
ity. 


Pur- 
pose. 


Amount. 


Period. 


De- 
nomi- 
nation. 


Rate of 
inter- 
est. 


Selling 
price. 


Care of 
sinking 
fund. 


State 
loans. 


other 
restric- 
tions. 


Arizona 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 


X 




X 


X 






\/ 


Arkansas 






'"* 


California 


X 
X 


X 
X 


....... 


X 
X 


X 
X 








Colorado 


X 




X 


Connecticut 


Delaware 








X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 










Florida 
















Georgia 




X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


-..„... 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 










Idaho 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 


X 






Illinois 






Indiana 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 






Iowa 




. 




Kansas 


X 




X 


Kentucky 


Louisiana 






X 


Michigan 








Minnesota 




X 








X 
X 
X 
X 






Missouri 


X 
X 
X 
X 


X 

X 



X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 




X 


Montana 






X 


Nevada 


New Ham pshire 










New Jersey 


X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 

"" "x" 


X 
X 
X 


""x"' 

X 


X 
X 
X 






X 


New Mexico 








New York 








North Carolina 




X 




North Dakota 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 

"x""' 

X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 




Ohio - 








X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

Y 

X 




X 




X 


Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 


X 












Y 

X 
X 
X 
X 


'x'"' 

X 

'"x"' 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 






South Dakota 
















X 


Utah 












X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


'"x"' 

X 


X 
X 
X 
X 
X 


X 
X 


'"x"" 


X 








West Virginia 










X 






X 















V. STATE REGULATION OF THE TAXING DUTIES AND POWERS OF 

LOCALITIES. 

A study of local taxation from the viewpoint of control must have 
at least two aspects: First, in very few States are the State distribu- 
tive moneys sufficient in amount to maintain efficient schools; hence 
States generally require localities to levy a local tax for the purpose 
of raising additional funds for school purposes. Second, many 



46 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

localities, because of a strong belief iti the value of public education, 
desire from time to time to expand the scope of school activity, a 
process carrymg with it increased expense, and therefore offering 
a field for legislative regulation. In practice, most States have 
adopted legislation involving both these aspects of control. 

More m detail, legislation concerning the levying of required local 
taxes is either indefinite or definite; that is, some States merely 
require that local taxes must be levied for the support of schools 
without specifymg any certain rate or amount, while other States do 
specify a fixed or a minimum rate or amount of tax. On the other 
hand, the States generally grant considerable latitude to localities 
by permitting them to increase the rate or amount of taxation for 
required taxes, or by permitting localities to levy privilege taxes, but 
at the same time limit such taxes as to their maximum. 

UNSPECIFIED, MINIMUM, OR FIXED REQUIREMENTS. 

In order to provide an amount of money additional to State appro- 
priations sufficient to maintain schools properly, 40 States ^ require 
localities to levy taxes for general or specific purposes. In all of the 
remaining States — Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Kansas, Texas, and West Vu'ginia — local school authorities, usually 
by sanction of the voters, are permitted to levy local taxes for 
school support, in addition to the money received from the State 
taxes and the income from the school fund. Further, in Indiana, 
such a local tax must be levied if the State tuition fund is insufii- 
cient to maintain school for at least six months. In Texas, the State 
appropriation must be sufficient to maintain schools for at least six 
months. In West Virginia, no district may receive any appropria- 
tion from the State unless it votes to levy a local tax for the sup- 
port of schools. 

The general purpose for which taxes must be levied is the support 
of schools. The specific purposes are the erection, enlargement, 
repair, and furnishing of schoolhouses, and the erection of suitable 
outbuildings therefor, the insurance of school property, the intro- 
duction and maintenance of school libraries and free texts, the fur- 
nishing of school supplies, the supplementing of the fund for the 
payment of salaries of teachers, of members of school boards, of 
attendance officers, and the satisfaction of judgments. 

REGULAR LEVY. 

State regulations concerning the levying of required local taxes vary. 
A State may let the rate or amount of tax to be levied remain unspeci- 

1 Arizona, C.ilifornia, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missoiyi, Montana, Nebraska, Ne- 
vada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Now York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Okla- 
homa, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vennont, 
Virginia, AVashington, Wisconsin, Wyoming. 



STATE EEGULATION OF LOCAL TAXES. 47 

fied, or it may direct that a minimum amount per child of school age, 
per teacher, per inhabitant, or according to the average daily attend- 
ance be raised; that a minimum rate on the total valuation of taxable 
property be levied; or that the amount of tax be proportionate to the 
amount of money apportioned to the localities by the State. In 
addition to these basic requirements, a State may demand that its 
localities levy a local specified poll tax for general school purposes; 
or it may require them to levy additional or special taxes of adequate 
amount when State or local funds, or both, are insufficient to meet 
school expenses. 

UNSPECIFIED EATE OR AMOUNT. 

The first of the bases relating to required taxation leaves the rate 
or amount of tax to be raised by local authorities indefinite, that is, 
the levying of an annual local tax is required, but the rate or amount 
of tax is unspecified so far as the minimum is concerned. Eighteen 
States ^ are included in this group, the taxes levied being either for 
general or specific purposes. 

General purposes. — In Connecticut, the law does not directly state that a town or 
district tax must be levied, but it does state that schools must be maintained for at 
least 36 weeks in each year in every town and school district. Further, the law pro- 
vides that no town shall receive any money from the State treasury for any district 
unless the school therein has been kept during the term specified. Still further, 
money appropriated by the State must be used only for teachers' salaries. To comply 
with the law, therefore, it is necessary for a local tax to be levied. In Kentucky, 
county boards of education estimate the educational needs of the county, and the 
county must levy a tax for school purposes. In Massachusetts, towns must raise by 
taxation the money necessary for the support of schools. In Michigan, boards of 
education in township school districts must vote the taxes necessary in addition to 
other school funds for teachers' salaries and for regular school expenses. In Minne- 
sota, school boards in independent districts must provide by tax necessary funds for 
the conduct of schools and the payment of indebtedness. In unorganized territory, 
county boards of education must levy a tax for the purpose of providing schools, 
teachers, transportation and board of pupils, textbooks, apparatus, school supplies, 
etc. In Mississippi, separate school districts must levy a tax sufficient to pay for 
fuel and other necessities and must also levy such taxes as may be necessary to insure 
the maintainance of schools during the minimum term. Iii Nebraska, legal voters 
must levy a district tax sufficient to maintain schools for the minimum term. In 
New Mexico, school boards must estimate for collection the rate of tax necessary for 
the maintenance of schools. In New York, districts must levy the amount certified by 
boards of education or school trustees as being necessary for teachers' salaries and 
contingent expenses. In Ohio, district school boards must fix the rate of taxation 
necessary for all school purposes after State funds are exhausted. In Oklahoma, 
county commissioners must levy a county tax sufficient to maintain schools. In 
Pennsylvania, all taxes required by any school district, in addition to the State 
appropriation, are to be levied by the board of school directors therein. ^ In Rhode 
Island, although the law does not directly state that towns must levy a local tax, yet 
it does state that every town must establish and maintain a sufficient number of 

1 Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 
New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Peimsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, 
Wisconsin. 

2 In districts of the first class, boards of education must levy a tax of at least 5 mills. 



48 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

public schools. Further, the law declares that no part of the State appropriation 
may be received by any town unless it raises by tax for the support of public schools 
a sum equal to the amount that it may receive from the State treasury for the support 
of schools. To comply with the law, therefore, it is necessary for local taxes to be 
levied. In Utah, the board of county commissioners must levy a county tax for the 
support of schools. In Wisconsin, when a district fails to vote a tax sufficient to main- 
tain schools for the minimum term, the school board must determine the sum necessary 
and the amount so fixed must be assessed. 

Specific purposes. — In Minnesota, in districts containing 10 or more townships, a 
levy must be made to provide for the salaries and traveling expenses of members of 
tlie school board, the amount of salary and expenses varying with the number of 
schools in such districts. In New Hampshire, selectmen of towns must raise the 
amount determined upon by the voters for salaries of school boards and truant officers. 
In New Jersey, school districts must raise and appropriate an amount sufficient to pay 
for free texts and necessary school supplies. In New York, school boards must make 
ordinary repairs to schoolhouses and provide suitable outbuildings therefor, and a tax 
sufficient for these purposes must be levied; school boards must also levy taxes suf- 
ficient to insure school buildings and school libraries. In Ohio, when any school 
building has been condemned as unfit for use, and the county, township, or munici- 
pality concerned is without the necessary funds to remedy the defects, a tax must 
be levied sufficient to produce the sum necessary, within a legal maximum. In 
Wasliington, in districts of the first class, county commissioners must levy the amount 
of funds determined upon by district school boards as being necessary for creating or 
adding to the permanent insurance fund . 

RATE OB AMOUNT ON VALUATION OF TAXABLE PROPERTY. 

The second of the basic requirements designates, in terms of a 
specified sum, or of a specified rate on the valuation of taxable 
property— that is, of so many cents on the $100 or of so many mills 
on the dollar^the fixed or the minimum amount of local tax which 
must be raised for general or specific school purposes. This require- 
ment holds in 15 States, and the details are as follows: 

General purposes. — Colorado, county tax, not less than 2 mills. Delaware, district 
tax, |100 in Kent and New Castle Counties and |60 in Sussex County, assessed on the 
projierty of white persons for the support of schools for white children; $50 in Kent 
and New Castle Counties and $30 in Sussex County, assessed on the property of col- 
ored persons for the support of schools for colored children. Florida, county tax, not 
less than 3 mills. Idaho, county tax, not less than 15 cents. Iowa, county tax, not 
less than 1 mill. Louisiana, parish tax, not less than 3 mills. Minnesota, county 
tax, 1 mill. Missouri, district tax, 40 cents. Montana, county tax, 4 mills. Nevada, 
county tax, not less than 20 cents. North Dakota, county tax, 2 mills. Oregon, dis- 
trict tax, 5 mills, or such rate as will produce an amount sufficient to yield the district 
the difference between $300 and the amount received from the county school fund. 
South Carolina, county tax, 3 mills. Vermont, town tax, not less than one-fifth of 
the grand list. Virginia, county and district tax, not less than 10 cents each (may 
be less by special order of the State board of education). 

Specific purposes. — In North Dakota, a rate sufficient to equalize property, funds 
on hand, and debts, when the boundaries of school districts are changed. 

AMOUNT DETERMINED BY DESIGNATED BASES. 

The third requirement, which is operative in 9 States, names the 
fixed or the minimum amount which must be raised by localities for 
general or specific purposes per child of school age, per teacher, per 



STATE REGULATION OF LOCAL TAXES, 49 

inliabitant, according to the average daily attendance, or propor- 
tionate to the amount of money received from the regular State 
apportionment. In 4 of these States, the minimum tax, as cal- 
culated on its basis, must never exceed the maximum tax, as calcu- 
lated on a property valuation basis. 

Per child of school age. — In California the county tax must yield $550 per teacher, 
less the amount of the State apportionment, provided such a basis yields at least 
$13 per pupil in average daily attendance in the county; if not, the latter basis holds; 
in no case, however, may the tax levied exceed the legal maximum. In Oregon 
the county tax must yield at least $8 per child of school age, l)ut in no case may the 
amount per child be less than that levied in 1910. Counties having a population of 
less than 100,000 inhabitants must levy for school libraries not less than 10 cents per 
child of school age. In Utah the district tax for school libraries must be 15 cents 
per child of school age. In Washington the county tax must yield at least $10 per 
child of school age within the legal maximum. 

Per teacher. — In California the county tax must yield $550 per teacher, less the 
amount of the State apportionment, provided such a basis yields at least $13 per 
pupil in average daily attendance in the county; if not, the latter basis holds; in no 
case, however, may the tax levied exceed the legal maximum. In Wyoming the 
county tax must yield $300 per teacher within the legal maximum. 

Per inhabitant. — In Maine, towns must raise less than 80 cents per inhabitant. 

According to average daily attendance. — In Arizona, within the legal maximum ^the 
county school levy is estimated by multiplying $35 by the sum representing the 
average daily attendance of the county during the first 8 months of the previous year; 
provided that such estimate must be sufficient to secure to every district at least 
$1,000; and provided further, that such final estimate must be increased by 10 per 
cent as a reserve fund. 

Proportionate to State apportiomnent. — In New Hampshire the selectmen of each 
town must levy a sum to be computed at the rate of $750 for every dollar of the public 
taxes apportioned to such town. In Wisconsin every town or city must raise a sum 
equal to not less than one-half of the amount received from the income of the State 
school fund. 

POLL OR OCCUPATION TAX. 

Aside from these basic requirements, as just considered, 6 States 
require their localities to levy for general school purposes a local 
fixed poll or minimum occupation tax. 

In Florida the county poll tax is $1, levied upon each male person over the age 
of 21 years and under the age of 55 years, except such as have lost a limb in battle. 
In North Dakota and South Dakota the county poll tax is $1, levied upon each elec- 
tor. In New Mexico the district poll tax is $1, levied upon all aljle-bodied male 
persons of the age of 21 years or over. In Wyoming the county poll tax is $2, levied 
upon each person between the ages of 21 and 50 years, inclusive. In Pennsylvania, 
in districts of the second, third, and fourth classes, an occupation tax of at least $1 
is levied upon each male resident or inhabitant over 21 years of age. 

SPECIAL LEVY. 

If State or local funds, or both, are insufficient to meet current 
school expenses, 18 States ^ require the levy of additional or special 

I Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Okla- 
homa, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota ,Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin. 

90757°— 15 4 



50 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, 

taxes of adequate amount. The details of this requirement are as 
follows : 

General purposes. — In Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
and Washington a district tax sufficient to maintain schools for the minimum term. 
In North Carolina a county tax of not less than 1 cent on the $100 of property valuation 
and not less than 3 cents on the poll in order to maintain schools for the minimum 
term. In Tennessee a county tax sufficient to maintain schools for the minimum 
term. 

Specific purposes. — In Maryland a county tax sufficient in amount to meet the mini- 
mum salary law. In Michigan a township tax of 1 mill to pay teachers' salaries. In 
North Dakota, in independent school districts, sufficient to pay teachers' salaries 
and contingent expenses. In New Jersey, when townships elect to act under legis- 
lation pertaining to city school districts, a township tax equal to the amount of money 
determined upon by the board of school estimate for the purchase of sites, or for erect- 
ing, enlarging, repairing, and furnishing a schoolhouse or schoolhouses. Also in all 
districts a tax sufficient to provide two suitable outbuildings for each schoolhouse. 
In New York, where no tax for liuilding a needed schoolhouse has been voted by 
the legal voters, a district tax in accordance with an estimate submitted by the dis- 
trict superintendent, which estimate may not be diminished l)y more than 25 per 
cent. In Wisconsin a town or district tax sufficient to provide proper outbuildings. 
In New Jersey, Oklahoma, North Dakota (within the legal maximum). South Dakota 
(within the legal maximum), Utah, and Wisconsin a district tax sufficient to satisfy 
judgments. In Minnesota a district tax sufficient to satisfy judgments, with interest. 
In Vermont a district tax sufficient to pay judgments and the charges and 12 
per cent interest thereon. 



STATE EEGULATION OF LOCAL TAXES. 



51 




_hy i~i r^ i. ri r4 z^ L^ fA '^ ^ y^ ^ r^ X. 

"3 °j:3^§gSS§.a.g.a.s5^ 



;z;;z; :?; 



52 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 



O 






S 



"ftfl, 



u. » ^^ ' 



"go 6C>,'i3 



.g§ 



2:s 2 



13 •«■« "a 

X XX X 



Soft 



XX 



XX 






S 03 

03 S 

O O 

o o 

iz; 'A 



XX 



03 -og^ 

w ® rf rf aJ . '-' 
00 O fiHpHMMHt)> 






S O 






".a- 






n 


s 


03 


C/3 


•n 





■B 


I3 


§ 


;; 




^ 




.1-! 




g 




J3 

.g 


3 







C Q'B 


» 


ft 
c 


03 






















■a 


0) 


3 


3 

■a 
2 


^ 




crp. 






03 u 



















c> 


OJ C/J 


a 
.2 


? 

S 


1 


4= 


^1 



iS g ca o g O 



3 M S -g >.-» 



STATE KBGULATION OF LOCAL TAXES. 63 

MAXIMUM LIMITATIONS. 

Although required taxes are generally established in order to insure 
the proper maintenance of schools for the minimum school term, 
increased rates upon such taxes and the levying of privilege taxes are 
generally permitted in order to make possible an extension of public- 
school work. In placing an unspecified, minimum, or fixed rate upon 
local taxation, a State guards against neglect or undue parsimony; 
in establishing maximum limitations, either- upon required or upon 
privilege taxes, it prevents undue extravagance. Maximum tax 
limitations have been adopted by 42 States.^ 

States adopting maximum tax limitations designate such limita- 
tions in terms of a rate upon the valuation of taxable property, in 
terms of amount, or in terms of a maximum tax per poll. Seven 
States ^ express maximum limitations under more than one of these 
divisions, according to the purpose involved. 

Whenever a maximum tax limitation is designated in State school 
legislation, the purpose involved is also designated. That is, maxi- 
mum limitations are placed upon taxes levied for general purposes, 
covered by the term "maintenance of schools," or upon taxes levied 
for specific purposes, such as the purchase of sites or the erection and 
repair of schoolhouses, salaries of teachers, school supplies, school 
Hbraries, transportation of school children, and the redemption and 
payment of interest on bonds and other outstanding indebtedness. 
Other specific purposes upon which maximum tax limitations have 
been placed are the enforcement of the compulsory-attendance law, 
the establishment of graded and industrial schools, the maintenance 
of a teachers' retirement fund, the equalization of property when dis- 
trict boundary lines have been changed, the satisfaction of Judg- 
ments, and the payment of salaries of school officers. 

RATE ON VALUATION OF TAXABLE PROPERTY. 

The designation of maximum tax limitations in terms of a rate 
upon the valuation of taxable property is the most frequent form, 
being applicable to 37 States.^ 

General purposes (including, in some instances, specific purposes without especially 
designated maximum rates, except those expressed in the limitations following) .— 

Maintenance of schools. — Alabama, county tax, special levy, 10 cents; but the rate 
of such tax must not increase the rate of taxation. State and county combined, in any 

lAlabrma, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pemisylvania, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, 
West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. 

'Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Wisconsin. 

^Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, 
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Peimsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. 



54 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

one year to more than $1.25, except for public buildings, roads, bridges, and debts 
existing at the time of the ratification of the present constitution. Arizona, county 
tax, 90 cents. Arkansas, district tax, seven-tenths of 1 per cent. California, county 
tax, 50 cents; district tax, 30 cents. Colorado, county tax, 5 mills; tax in districts of 
the third class, 20 mills. Florida, county tax, 7 mills; district tax, 3 mills. Georgia, 
county tax, special levy, one-half of 1 per cent; district tax, special levy, one-half of 
1 per cent. Idaho, county tax, 50 cents; district tax, special levy, 15 mills; tax in 
independent districts, special levy, 20 mills. Illinois, district tax, IJ per cent; tax 
in districts containing 1,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, 2 per cent, such limitation, how- 
ever, not applying to certain districts governed by special acts, in which there is no 
limit to the maximum taxing power. Indiana, township, town, or city tax, 50 cents; 
township, town, or city tax, special levy, 50 cents. Iowa, county tax, 3 mills. Ken- 
tucky, county tax, 20 cents; subdistrict tax, 25 cents; tax in graded school districts, 
50 cents on property belonging to white voters or corporations. Minnesota, tax in 
common-school districts, 15 mills, but in districts maintaining a high or a graded 
school, 25 mills; tax in cities of the fourth class, 20 mills, exclusive of the tax levy for 
interest on bonded indebtedness, sinking fund, or building fund; tax in special school 
districts, 20 mills; tax in special school districts lying within any one county and con- 
taining from 10,000 to 20,000 inhabitants, or in districts containing 50,000 inhabitants 
or more, 9 mills. Missouri, district tax, 65 cents; tax in town school districts, $1. 
Montana, district tax, special levy, 10 mills. Nebraska, tax in districts containing 4 
children or fewer of school age, $400; in districts containing more than 4 children 
and fewer than 16, $50 per child in addition to the above $400, provided that the 
amount so levied may not exceed in any one year $3.50 on the $100. Nevada, county 
tax, 50 cents; district tax, special levy, 25 cents. New Mexico, district tax, 15 mills; 
tax in incorporated towns and cities, 10 mills, including a specific maximum for the 
payment of bonds. North Carolina, tax in incorporated towns and cities which do 
not levy any other special tax for school purposes, 30 cents, to supplement the i^ublic- 
school fund; county tax to supplement the county school fund, special levy, 30 cents; 
county tax to extend the school term, special levy, 5 cents. North Dakota, district 
tax, 30 mills. Ohio, county tax, 3 mills; township tax, 2 mills; district tax, 5 mills; 
district tax, special levy, 5 mills, to be levied for any number of years not exceeding 
five. Oklahoma, county tax, 1 mill; district tax, 5 mills; district tax, special levy, 
10 miils. Oregon, district tax, 5 mills. Pennsylvania, tax in districts of the second 
class, 20 mills; in districts of the third and fourth classes, 25 mills. Rhode Island, 
tax for all town purposes, 1^ per cent, except for the purpose of paying indebtedness 
or for appropriations to any of the sinking funds or for extraordinary repairs or for 
damages caused by the elements. South Carolina, district tax, special levy, 8 mills. 
South Dakota, district tax, 20 mills; tax in independent districts, 25 mills. Tennes- 
see, tax in cities and taxing districts containing 130,000 inhabitants or more, 25 cents, 
including the redemption and payment of interest on bonds; tax in coimties contain- 
ing 145,000 to 190,000 inhabitants, 40 cents; tax in counties containing 190,000 inhabi- 
tants or more, 25 cents over and above the aggregate levy by the State for State and 
school purposes. Texas, tax in incorporated districts, 50 cents; tax in common-school 
districts, special levy, 50 cents; tax in cities and towns which have assumed control 
of their public schools, special levy, 50 cents. Utah, county tax, 4 mills; district tax, 
1 per cent; district tax, special levy, 2 per cent. Tax in county school districts of the 
first class as follows: A district whose assessed valuation is $10,000^000 or more, 10 
mills; a district whose assessed valuation is more than $8,000,000 and less than 
$10,000,000, 12 mills; a district whose assessed valuation is more than $5,000,000 and 
less than $8,000,000, 13^ mills; a district whose assessed valuation is less than 
$5,000,000, 15 mills. Virginia, county tax, 40 cents; district tax, 40 cents (combined 
total county and district tax may not exceed 50 cents). Washington, county tax, 5 
mills; tax in districts of the third class, 2 per cent. West Virginia, district tax, 12J 



STATE REGULATION OF LOCAL TAXES. 55 

cents; special levy, 20 cents. Wisconsin, district tax, 2 per cent. Wyoming, county 
tax, 3 mills; district tax, 10 mills. 

Specific purposes — Sites and buildings. — California, district tax, 70 cents. Illinois, 
district tax, 1^ per cent; tax in districts containing 1,000 to 100,000 inhabitants, such a 
percentage that the aggregate levy shall not exceed 3 per cent, such limitation, how- 
ever, not applying to certain districts, governed by special acts, in which there is no 
limit to the maximum taxing power. Indiana, township, town, or city tax, 15 cents, 
to be levied only when plainly necessary. Iowa (including roads to schoolhouses and 
libraries therefor), district tax, 10 mills, which may be increased by any subdistrict 
for application only to that particular subdistrict to not exceeding 15 mills. Michigan, 
tax in township school districts of the upper peninsula, 3 mills. Minnesota, district 
tax, 10 mills; but in districts in which such 10-mill tax will not produce $600 a greater 
tax may be levied not to exceed 35 mills on the dollar or $600 in amount; tax in inde- 
pendent school districts, 8 mills. Missouri, tax in town school districts, 1 per cent. 
Nebraska, district tax, 10 mills above the 35-mill levy allowed for general school pur- 
poses, but not exceeding 10 per cent of the assessed valuation of property within the 
school district. North Dakota, tax in independent school districts, 20 mills. Okla- 
homa, district tax, 5 mills. Texas, tax in incorporated districts, 25 cents. Utah, tax 
in county school districts of the first class, 1^- mills. 

Teachers' salaries. — Colorado, district tax, special levy, 10 mills. Minnesota, tax in 
districts containing 50,000 inhabitants or more, 1 mill for increasing teachers' salaries, 
subject to the total maximum limit of 9 mills; West Virginia, district tax for teachers' 
salaries, 25 cents. 

Free texts, equipment, and materials for use in manual training, industrial training, 
and domestic science. — Nevada, district tax, 25 cents. 

School libraries. — Colorado, district tax, one-tenth of 1 mill. Kansas, district tax, 
varying from one-eighth to one-half of 1 mill, according to valuation of taxable prop- 
erty. Pennsylvania, tax in districts of the second, third, and fourth classes, 1 mill. 
Washington, county tax, one-tenth of 1 mill. 

Transportation of school children. — Idaho, tax in independent school districts, special 
levy, 10 mills. 

Compulsory attendance. — Indiana, common-school corporation tax, 5 cents. 

Graded schools. — ^West Virginia, district tax in districts in which there is a town, 
village, or densely populated neighborhood having two or more schools in the same 
building, 25 cents for the teachers' fund and 15 cents for the building fund; for extend- 
ing the term of such graded schools, 5 cents. 

Vocational schools or departments. — Indiana, tax in school cities, towns, or townships, 
10 cents. North Dakota, tax in associated rural school districts, 4 mills. Wisconsin, 
village, town, or city tax, one-half of 1 mill. 

Teachers' retirement fund. — Colorado, tax in districts of the first class, one-tenth of 
1 mill. 

Equalization of property , funds on hand, and debts. — In North Dakota, for equalizing 
property, funds on hand, and debts when the boundaries of school districts are changed, 
15 mills, within the 30-mill maximum limit for general school purposes. 

Satisfaction of judgments. — North Dakota and South Dakota, district tax, 20 mills. 

Redemption and payment of interest on bonds and other outstanding indebtedness. — 
Colorado, county tax, sufficient to pay not more than 20 per cent of the principal of 
outstanding bonds. Florida, tax in special school districts, 5 mills. Indiana, tax in 
incorporated towns of not more than 1,000 inhabitants, 2 per cent; in towns or cities 
of 1,000 to 5,000 inhabitants, 50 cents; in other cities, except cities of the first and 
second classes, 25 cents. Iowa, school corporation tax, 5 mills. Kansas, tax in 
depopulated districts, 4 mills; in partially depopulated districts, 2J mills. Kentucky, 
tax in graded school districts, 25 cents; in the same districts to redeem bonds issued 
for completing an unfinished schooUiouse, 25 cents. Mississippi, county tax, 1 mill. 



56 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

Missouri, district tax, two-fifths of 1 per cent. New Mexico, district tax, sufficient to 
pay interest and not more than 20 per cent of the principal of outstanding bonds; tax 
in incorporated cities and towns, 5 mills. North Dakota, in districts which have no 
school board because of the failure of electors to elect or of the county superintendent 
to appoint, and which have an authorized indebtedness, 20 mills. South Dakota, 
district tax, sufficient to pay interest and not more than 15 per cent of the principal 
of bonded indebtedness. Texas, county tax, 25 cents; tax in incorporated school 
districts, 25 cents. Virginia, district tax, 25 cents. Washington, district tax, 3 mills. 
Wyoming, district tax, 7 mills. 

AMOUNT DETERMINED BY DESIGNATED BASES, OR STATED AS A GROSS SUM. 

As expressed by amount, the manner of designating maximum 
limitations is varied. The amount may be stated as a gross sum for 
a certain purpose; as so much per child of school age or pupil in 
attendance, per school officer, or according to the number of children 
of school age or average attendance, or the number of voters or 
inhabitants; or as an amount not to exceed the entire amount of the 
State tax. Seven States arc listed under these bases, and the limita- 
tions are as follows: 

Per child of school age or -per pupil in attendance. — Iowa, school corporation tax for 
contingent expenses, $7 per person of school age, but at least |75 per school. School 
corporation tax for the payment of teachers' salaries, including the amount received 
from the State apportionment, |20 per person of school age, but at least $270 per school. 
School corporation tax for the purchase of free texts and supplies, $1.50 per person of 
school age. School corporation tax for transportation and board of rural school chil- 
dren, $5 per person of school age. Tax in consolidated independent school districts 
for general school purposes, $32 per person of school age, including the amount received 
from the State apportionment. In Vermont, tax in unorganized towns or gores for 
tuition, transportation, or board, $1.50 per child per week, to be levied when such 
towns or gores can not conveniently provide school privileges. 

According to number of children of school age or average attendance. — Michigan, tax for 
sites and buildings, in the same year that any bonded indebtedness is incurred, in 
districts containing less than 10 children, $250; in districts containing between 10 and 
30 children, $500; in districts containing between 30 and 50 children, $1,000. Tax 
for the payment of salaries of district school officers, $25 in districts containing less 
than 50 children and $50 in districts containing from 50 to 100 children. Wisconsin, 
tax in districts containing less than 200 children, for the purchase of maps, blackboards, 
and school apparatus, $75. Tax for teachers' salaries, in districts having an average 
attendance of 15 jjupils or less, not more than $350; in districts having an average at- 
tendance of not more than 30 nor less than 15 pupils, not more than $450; in districts 
having an average attendance of not more than 40 nor less than 30 pupils, not more 
than $550. 

Gross amount in dollars. — New York, district tax, for the purchase of maps, globes, 
and other school apparatus and for the purchase of textbooks and other school necessi- 
ties for the use of poor pupils, $25. Wisconsin, district tax for district libraries, $100. 

According to number of voters or inhabitants. — Minnesota, tax in districts containing 
less than 10 voters, |400, for the support of schools. Wisconsin, tax in districts con- 
taining less than 250 inhabitants, for building a schoolhouse, not more than $600 in 
any one year. 

Per school officer. — Wisconsin, district tax for the payment of salaries of clerk, $20, 
and of treasurer and director, $10 per officer. 

Not exceeding the entire amount of State tax. — Tennessee, county tax for the extension 
of the school term, an amount not to exceed the entire State tax. 



STATE REGULATIOlsr OF LOCAL TAXES. 57 

POLL TAX. 

Poll taxes, because of the relatively small amount which they pro- 
duce, are to be regarded as a supplemental source of funds, rather 
than as a main source. All of the States which authorize their levy 
by local school authorities for local school purposes therefore author- 
ize other bases upon which taxes may be levied. Four States desig- 
nate maximum limitations for such local poll tax levies, the details of 
which are as follows: 

Indiana: Township, town, or city tax for the extension of the school term, 25 cents; 
special levy for general school purposes, $1 ; town or city tax to redeem and pay in- 
terest on bonds and other outstanding indebtedness, $1. Kentucky: County tax, for 
general school purposes, $1 ; graded school district tax for maintenance of schools and 
erection of buildings, $1.50 per white male inhabitant over 21 years of age. Missis- 
sippi: County tax for the extension of the school term, $1. North Carolina: County 
tax for the maintenance of schools, 15 cents; county tax, special levy, to supplement 
the county school fund, 90 cents; tax in incorporated towns and cities, in which no 
other special tax for schools is levied, to supplement the public school fund, 90 cents. 

PERMISSIVE POWER TO LOCALITIES TO EXCEED DESIGNATED MAXIMUM. 

Central control such as is indicated by the preceding provisions re- 
lating to maximum limitations is shown in less degree when a State 
establishes a maximum tax but empowers local authorities, such as 
voters, taxpayers, or civil authorities, to levy a tax exceeding the rate 
or amount designated by law. Six States grant such taxing con- 
cessions to their localities. In most instances when such action is 
taken, however, it must be considered at an election, due notice of 
which has been given, and the amount of increase desired must be 
determined by formal vote. 

In Kansas, the voters may, at a regular or special election by a three-fourths vote, 
increase the regular tax levy for general school purposes beyond the maximum 
district tax of 4^ mills to a rate sufRcient for current needs. Such tax, however, may 
not be levied for more than one year. In Louisiana, the total parish or municipal tax 
is 10 mills for all parish or municipal purposes. For maintenance of schools, erection 
of school buildings, and other permanent improvements, however, such rate may be 
increased whenever the rate of such increase and the number of years the tax is to be 
levied and the purpose or purposes for which it is intended shall have been carried by 
a majority of the property taxpayers voting at a special election called for that purpose. 
In Maryland, the maximum county tax, special levy, is 15 cents for the purpose of 
paying teachers' salaries and supplying free texts, but a higher rate sufficient to make 
good any deficiency that may exist in the amount of money received from the State 
fund for these purposes may be levied if the county commissioners so approve. In 
Mississippi, the maximum district tax for general school purposes is 3 mills, but this 
may be exceeded upon the consent of a majority of the taxpayers as evidenced by 
petition. In West Virginia, in districts having a bonded indebtedness which can not 
be paid off by funds derived from the maximum levy of 12 J cents allowed for general 
school purposes, the maximum rate may be exceeded by authority of the voters, 
such excess, or as much thereof as may be necessary, to continue without additional 
vote until the indebtedness is paid off. In districts containing an incorporated city 
or town where a graded or high school is maintained for a longer period than six months, 



58 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

the ])oard of education has authority to increase the maximum of 37§ cents (12J cents 
for general school purposes and 25 cents for the teachers' fund) to an amount sufficient 
to conduct the schools of said city or town for the term fixed. In Wisconsin, no dis- 
trict containing a population of less than 250 inhabitants has power to levy and collect 
a tax of more than |600 in any one year for building, hiring, or purchasing a school- 
house unless the town lioard in which such schoolhouse is to be situated certifies in 
writing that in its opinion a larger sum should be raised, specifying such sum, in which 
case an amount not to exceed the sum specified may be raised ; further, no district con- 
taining a population of less than 1,000 inhalutants has power to raise and collect in 
any one year, for the purpose above specified, more than |1,000, imless the town board 
shall so certify. 



STATE REGULATION OF LOCAL TAXES. 



59 






"06 




•— < *-t *-■ CO O -— I "^ T-J 



a fi 



O 5 CD 



o -^ 



s8« 



;SS 



•w o-£-" o g a X S, 









JS cs rl 






3 « o 



60 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTAEV EDUCATION. 



a 




=33 



F5X 










^ tiO 



sa 1^ S s s s^ iz; ;2; 



O) O 

iz; "A 



2 a 

O C3 fcjD M 

OOO (i< 



C3 -a C ^ 



>. 



STATE EEGULATIOlSr OF LOCAL TAXES. 



61 






§a 



d— I d o 
"go" 



d S;3 
^,2 



'C^ rt CM T-H 



03 



g -g 



■3 s 



as 



S > 



•SS 



S d 

d m 

." o 
,o3 (S 



a° 

d §„• 
+j o d 



agS'i 

-3 0.d 03 . 
S tH " OP O 
O'^ O 03 03 






iss 



dT3 o3.g 



l-H t-. tH ca O'-^ ® r 



2§ 



•5 M 
j3 03 

•|S 

^® 
t: ft 

ft.g 

ft!-. 
O " 

d =« 
.2 « 

"^ £ 



go 
2 ° 

.a a 

§ d 



S o:^'2 



a 
o 
ft 

d^§ 



O) ft o 



d qj^lO o 

..-03 o n ® 






S d^ 



d o a> 



ft- ts ® s.s 



ft 

m ft 



3g ^ 5M 



..■d d h rj fl/l OT? '-' " 

^BSdSdp'S^-SdS 

3SaM^Ss'«a'a-2g 
.Q r- a t. P'S-^ a-' «■■« " 

ft" St'+f-a^ni^ .«"[>. 

&.sg^gs^g|25-^ 

9pl||l||oi-! 
°.2 S Sii d ^-S 2« ^"^ 

^a-^^d°°doj^;^ 



62 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTAEY EDUCATION. 



S 4) 



aa 



XX 



X X 



o 



s 
s 



.3 3 . 

a ti a 



a . 

O "3 



o a 
o 



§2 ?.2 






•3 o ^ 



00 



•S 2 



o 5 § « g 






2 &> 



03-c CB 

3 o^ o 

r> VJ C3 i? O) 



o OP a> o) o 



- ' i; M m a) " _ m ■ 'On 

O _c! Ji: I . n. ^ ^ ^ (ij n:) +^ CD .S 



g-9 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 63 

DISCUSSION. 

State regulation of the taxing duties and powers of localities 
affords central authority considerable opportunity for the exercise 
of control. The extent to which such opportunity has been utilized 
is shown by the facts, first, that 40 States have adopted legislation 
directing the levying by localities of unspecified, minimum, or fixed 
rates or amounts; and, second, that 42 States have adopted legisla- 
tion limiting taxes as to the maximum levy permissible. 

In the simple requirement that localities raise a tax sufficient to 
support schools, central control is but little in evidence. When either 
a fixed or a minimum tax is required or maximum limitations are 
established, central control is increased; when both fixed or mini- 
mum and maximum restrictions are in force, central control in 
respect to local taxation reaches its highest point. This analysis is 
of course only generally true, because of the many other considera- 
tions that must be given weight. For instance, the presence in one 
State of both minimum and maximum limitations concerning rela- 
tively unimportant purposes may actually show less central control 
than a minimum limitation only in another State concerning an 
important purpose. Or, again, considering rates or amounts as well 
as frequency and purpose, the establishment of one minimum lim- 
itation only in reference to general support of schools, but that 
minimum limitation one of high rate or amount, may indicate greater 
central control than a number of minimum limitations of high rate 
or amount, or a number of maximum limitations of low rate or 
amount, or both, relating to less important purposes. 

Granted that legislatures have exercised due care in establishing 
minimum or maximum limitations, it is fair to assume that when 
localities are fairly liberal in regard to their schools they do not feel 
central control as expressed in a required tax; nor are they con- 
cerned about maximum limitations as long as they are judicious and 
refrain from undue extravagance; it is only when they reach either 
extreme that central control is felt. Generally, therefore, in the 
financial administration of the public elementary schools, neither 
required taxes nor maximum limitations are regarded by local 
authorities as obtrusive control. Nevertheless, the power of control 
exists potentially at least, and its existence, as well as its exercise, 
indicates centralization. 

VI. STATE INTERVENTION. 

In order to insure local compliance with State regulations, all 
States have adopted legislation providmg for intervention when 
localities, by reason of neglect, parsimony, or insubordination, fail to 
comply with one or more laws. 



64 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

State intervention as here consiclered operates in any one of three 
forms: (1) By transferring authority from one officer to another 
because of nonperformance of duty involving matters of finance; (2) 
by constituting locahties or local officers liable because of the non- 
performance of duty involving matters of finance; (3) by withhold- 
ing from offending localities all or a portion of State school moneys 
because of the nonperformance of certain duties specified by law. 

TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY FROM LOCAL TO STATE OFFICERS. 

A transfer of authority by a State in case of nonperformance of 
duty involving finance deals with the levying of taxes, as is gener- 
ally the case, or with duties involving the expenditure of school funds. 
Such transfers are generally made from one local officer to another 
local officer and more rarely from local to State officers. > With the 
details of the transfer of authority from one local officer to another, 
this study is not directly concerned, since control remains local. 
Transfers of authority from local officers to State officers, however, 
involve central control and call for analysis. 

LEVYING OF TAXES. 

Legislation pertaining to transfer of authority shows that in five 
States 2 authority for the levying of taxes for school purposes is 
directly transferred, in case of nonperformance of duty, from local 
officers to State officers. The purposes specified are limited to the 
maintenance of schools and the redemption of and payment of inter- 
est on bonds. The State officers to whom such duties are transferred 
are the State superintendent, the State controller, the State board 
of equalization, and the State auditor. 

Maintain schools. — In Nevada, if county commissioners fail to levy the regular 
county tax for the maintenance of schools, county auditors must add to the assess- 
ment roll such tax as the superintendent of public instruction may deem sufficient, 
between the limits of 20 and 50 cents on the $100 valuation of taxable property. 
Also, if school trustees fail to provide by district taxation the funds necessary to 
insure the completion of at least six months of school in any school year, when notified 
by the deputy State superintendent of i)ublic instruction in charge of the district 
that such action is necessary, the deputy State superintendent must then notify the 
county commissioners of the amount necessary to be raised, and the commissioners 
must assess, equalize, and collect this amount, as though the trustees themselves had 
made the levy. 

Redeem and pay interest on bonds. — In California, if boards of supervisors fail to make 
the levy to pay for bonds or interest coupons and payment is refused, owners may 
file the bonds, together with all unpaid coupons, with the State controller; thereupon 
the State board of equalization adds to the State tax to be levied in the district a rate 

1 The States in which transfers are made from local to State officers are California, Connecticut, Iowa, 
Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Ten- 
nessee, Virginia. 

2 California, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, Oklahoma. 



STATE IlSTTERVENTIOlSr. 65 

sufficient to realize the amount of the principal or interest past due. In Kansas, ii 
the proper officers fail or neglect to make a levy sufficient in amount to pay the interest 
upon refunding bonds and coupons, county clerks must levy such tax; if county 
clerks fail to perform their duty, the auditor of State informs county treasurers of the 
amount due and such amount must be by them levied. In Louisiana, if school boards 
fail or refuse to levy a tax sufficient to pay the interest and principal on bonds issued, 
the auditor of public accounts must name the rate of such tax and order the same 
collected. In Oklahoma, if officers whose duty it is to levy taxes to pay bonds and 
coupons fail to act, the State auditor ascertains the amount necessary and certifies the 
fact to the county treasurer, who makes the levy. 

DUTIES INVOLVING THE EXPENDITURE OF SCHOOL MONEYS. 

A transfer of authority from local to State officers because of the 
nonperformance of duties involving the expenditure of school funds 
occurs in nine States.^ The duties designated include the repair 
and improvement of school buildings, the employment of officers, 
the maintenance of schools, the provision of flags, and the payment 
of interest or principal on money borrowed from the State. The 
State officers designated to perform such duties are the State super- 
intendent, deputy State superintendents, the State board of educa- 
tion, the governor and council, the commissioner of health, and the 
State auditor. 

Repair and im-prove schoolhouses . — In Connecticut, whenever it may be found by the 
State board of education or by the board of school visitors or by a member of the town 
school committee that further or different sanitary provisions or means of lighting 
and ventilating are required without unreasonable expense, either of said boards 
or such member of the town school committee may recommend the desired changes; 
in case such changes are not made substantially as recommended within two weeks 
fi'om the date of notice thereof, such board or member of the committee may make com- 
plaint to the proper health authority of the community, which authority shall order 
such changes made as it may deem necessary and proper. In Nevada, if school 
trustees fail to provide outbuildings, the deputy State superintendent in charge of 
the district must cause the same to be built and paid for out of district funds. Also, 
if school trustees fail to keep school buildings in proper repair, the deputy State super- 
intendent in charge of the district must cause such needed repairs to be made and 
paid for out of district funds, provided the cost does not exceed $50. 

Employ officers. — In Iowa and Tennessee, when county superintendents fail to 
submit reports, the superintendent of public instruction may appoint and compensate 
some suitable person to perform such duties, the cost of which must be paid by the 
delinquent county superintendent. In Maine, when the State superintendent is 
of the opinion that the census has been inaccurately taken, he must make a statement 
thereof to the governor and council, who may require the census to be retaken, and 
if they think necessary, appoint and compensate persons to perform such service. 
In New Hampshire, the governor, with the advice and consent of the council, may 
require school boards to remove truant officers who are incompetent and to appoint 
competent successors, and upon the failure or neglect of school boards to do so, said 
State officers may appoint and compensate such truant officers. In Pennsylvania, 
if school districts which are required to provide medical inspection do not comply 

I Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia. 
90757°— 15— 5 



66 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 



with the law within 30 days after the beginning of the school year, the commissioner 
of health must appoint a properly qualified medical inspector for the remainder of 
the school year, and fix the compensation which shall be paid him by the district. 

Maintain schools. — In Nevada, whenever there is sufficient money to the credit of 
any school district to pay the expense of maintaining school eight months, and the 
trustees neglect to provide for an eight months' term, the deputy State superintendent 
in charge of the district must take the action necessary to do so. In New Mexico, 
if county superintendents refuse to approve the applications of districts to share in 
the State school building fund when the annual income is insufficient to maintairj 
schools for the required term, the directors may present the facts to the State board 
of education, which board may, after a hearing and if it finds the facts so warrant, 
approve said application without the indorsement of the county superintendent. 

Provide flags. — In Nevada, if school trustees fail or neglect to provide a flag for each 
schoolhouse, the deputy State superintendent in charge of the district must provide 
and install such flag, the expense to be met by an order drawn on the county auditors. 

Pay interest or principal on money borroived from the State.-r-ln Virginia, if district 
boards fail to pay the interest or principal on money borrowed from the State, the 
second State auditor or State superintendent must notify county or city treasurers or 
other persons having charge of district funds to pay to the State treasurer any past 
due installment out of any district funds belonging to the district or school board. 

Transfer of authority frorn local to State officers. 



States. 



Levy 
taxes. 



E.xpend 
school 
funds. 



California 

Connecticut 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Nevada 

New Hampshire. 

New Mexico 

Oklahoma 

Pennsylvania 

Tennessee 

Virginia 



LIABILITY OF LOCALITIES OR LOCAL OFFICERS TO THE STATE, 



So far as liability because of the nonperformance of duty involving 
finance is concerned, State school legislation usually constitutes 
offending localities or local officers liable to other local officers. In 
the main, such legislation provides or implies that laws pertaining 
to liability shall be enforced by designated local officers and that 
the amount of liability, when collected, shall be paid into the local 
treasury. The amount of such liability varies from a fixed sum as 
low as one dollar to the highest amount ever voted by the locality 
for the support of schools. In a few cases, under certain conditions, 
the penalties so inflicted may be remitted by designated State 
authorities. Only in a few instances in a few States is it true that 
State authorities are responsible for the enforcement of the law per- 
tainmg to liabifity or that the amount of liability is collectible by 



STATE INTERVENTION. 67 

the State. With the details of the Kabihty of one local authority 
to another we are not directly concerned, but legislation constituting 
local authority directly liable to central authority, or constituting 
local authority liable to other local authority through the interven- 
tion of central authority, requires analysis. 

Such a policy applies in 11 States.^ The duties designated are the 
maintenance of schools ; the apportionment, care, and expenditure of 
school moneys ; the provision of proper and sanitary school buildings ; 
and the submission of financial reports. Details of such legislation 
follow. 

MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOLS. 

In Connecticut, any town neglecting or refusing to provide for the 
support of its schools forfeits to the State a sum equal to the amount 
necessary for such purpose. 

APPORTIONMENT, CARE, AND EXPENDITURE OF SCHOOL MONEYS. 

If school laws pertaining to the care and expenditure of school funds 
are not complied with, local authorities become directly liable, in four 
States, to central authority, and in one State to local authority upon 
intervention of central authority. In Connecticut and Indiana it is 
specified that suits for the recovery of incurred liability are to be 
brought by State officers; and in Connecticut, Kansas, New Hamp- 
shire, and Washington, local authorities must pay the amounts of 
their Hability directly to the State. Such liability equals the amount 
misapphed; or the amount of the loss, with or without damages; or 
double the amount lost or misapplied, with or without interest. 

In Connecticut, if money appropriated to the use of schools is applied to any other 
purpose, the town or school misappropriating such money must forfeit the amount 
thereof to the State and the controller must sue for the same in behalf of the State. 
In Indiana, county auditors failing or refusing to distribute and report in full the 
miscellaneous school fund belonging to the various townships within the county are 
liable, and the superintendent of public instruction must direct that action be brought 
upon the official bond of any defaulting auditor, and the prosecuting attorney of the 
proper county must bring action; on finding against any such auditor, judgment must 
be entered for the sum committed to him for distribution, with damages of 20 per cent 
thereon, which shall be for the benefit of the fund belonging to the township affected. 
In Kansas, county treasurers neglecting or refusing to remit to the State treasurer all 
moneys accruing from bonds are liable to the State in a sum equal to the amount of 
such bonds or coupons remaining unpaid. In New Hampshire, if local school officers 
misapply any money received from the literary fund, such officers must refund to the 
State treasury double the sum so misapplied. In Washington, officers or persons who 
have collected or received fines, forfeitures, or other moneys belonging to the schools, 
and who fail or refuse to pay over the same, must forfeit double the amount so withheld 
and interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent per month during the time of withholding 
the same; further, any school officer who misapplies moneys entrusted to him must be 
fined not to exceed $100; in both instances the fines so imposed are placed by the 
State treasurer to the credit of the current school fund of the State. 

1 Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Oregon, and Washington. 



68 CONTEOL OF ELEMENTAEY EDUCATION. 

PROVISION OF SANITARY SCHOOLHOUSES. 

In three States local authorities must provide sanitary schoolhouses 
within the time and in the manner required by law. If this is not 
done, State authorities (either the State board of education or the 
State superintendent) are empowered to act. The amounts of 
liability range from an indefinite minimum to a maximum of $1,000. 

In Connecticut whenever it is found by the State board of education or the board of 
school visitors or by a member of the town school committee that different sanitary 
provisions or means of lighting and ventiU\ting schoolhouses are required and that the 
same can be provided without unreasonable expense, either of said boards or such 
member of the town school committee may recommend to the person or authority 
in charge of or controlling such schoolhouses the desired changes; every violation of 
this law is punishable by a fine of not more than $500. In New Mexico any person 
failing to perform the duties required of him by the act entitled "An act to enforce 
the building of schoolhouses" is punishable by a fine of not less than |100 nor more 
than $500; and the superintendent of public instruction must see that this act is 
strictly enforced. In North Dakota if the State superintendent ascertains that 
further ventilating and sanitary provisions should be made in certain schools and 
that such provisions can be made within reasonable expense, he has power to order 
the proper authority to pro\ide such, and any school committee, public oflicer, or 
person having charge of a public-school building who neglects for four weeks to comply 
with the order of the State superintendent is subject to a fine of not less than $100 nor 
more than $1,000. 

SUBMISSION OF FINANCIAL REPORTS. 

In three States local authorities are required to submit reports 
pertaining to finance under penalty of intervention by the State 
superintendent. In Iowa county superintendents forfeit to the 
county school fund the sum of $50 and become liable for the amount 
paid to the person appointed by the State superintendent to prepare 
the fuiancial report. In Massachusetts towns or cities failing to 
file fuiancial reports with the commissioner of education by June 1 
forfeit $200 to the State school fund. In Ohio on complaint of the 
State commissioner of schools, county auditors failing to submit 
fuiancial reports are liable on their bonds for not less than $300 nor 
more than $1,000, to be paid into the county treasury. 

CONDUCT FIRE DRILLS. 

In Indiana, officers neglecting to comply with the law respecting 
fire drills in schools are subject to a fine of not less than $25 nor 
more than $100 for each offense, such fines being paid into the State 
treasury for the benefit of the State fire marshal fund. 

REMOVAL OF SCHOOL FURNITURE WHEN BUILDING IS USED FOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL 

PURPOSES. 

In Oregon any person removing school furniture for any purpose 
other than repairing the same or repairing the schoolroom is subject 
to a fine of not less than $5 nor more than $10 for each offense, such 
fines being paid into the general school fund of the State. 



STATE INTEEVENTIOISr. 



69 



REAIISSION OF FINES. 



Provision is made in three States for the remission by State authori- 
ties of fines legally imposed upon one local officer by another local 
officer. In New York the fine imposed upon trustees or boards of 
education because of their employment of unqualified teachers may 
be remitted by the commissioner of education. In Virginia the 
fine imposed upon county treasurers or clerks of district school 
boards for failure to submit required reports may be remitted by 
county boards of education upon the approval of the State board of 
education. In Rhode Island the commissioner of public schools 
may, by and with the advice of the State board of education, remit 
aU fines incurred by any person for violation of the law. 

Liability of localities or local officers to the State. 



States. 


Maintain 
schools. 


Appor- 
tion, 

care for, 
and 

expend 
school 

moneys. 


Provide 
sanitary 
school 
build- 
ings. 


Submit 
financial 
reports. 


Conduct 

fire 

drills. 


Remove 

school 
furniture 

when 
building 

is used 

for other 

than 

school 
purposes. 




X 


X 
X 


X 












X 




Iowa . . 






X 








X 














X 










X 












X 
X 




















Ohio 






X 
















X 






X 























WITHHOLDING STATE SCHOOL MONEYS, 

In an effort to insure performance of duty, States sometimes adopt 
a more drastic disciplinary measure than those heretofore referred to, 
namely, that of withholding from offending localities or local officers 
all or a certain portion of State school moneys. The policy of with- 
holdmg State school moneys is a rather common form of pecuniary 
penalization, being adopted by 40 of the 48 States in the Union.^ 
The duties involved cover a wide range of elementary school activities, 
chief among which are the maintenance of schools for the time 
required by law; the levying and payment of taxes; the care and 
expenditure of school moneys and the ffling of official bonds; the 
submission of reports; the return of school enumerations; the em- 
ployment of qualified teachers and superintendents and the payment 

1 Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washing- 
ton, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming. 



70 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

to them of a minimum salary; provision of specified school accom- 
modations; the enforcement of the compulsory-attendance law; 
introduction of specified subjects into the curriculum; exclusion of 
instruction in foreign tongues; exclusive use of State-adopted texts 
and State course of study; exclusion of denominational, sectarian, or 
partisan instruction; nonseparation of pupils because of race or social 
position; closing of schools during institute session; appointment of 
a school agent or treasurer and the reporting of the same; and, lastly, 
the performance of all duties specified by law. 

MAINTENANCE OF SCHOOLS FOR THE TIME REQUIRED BY LAW. 

The most frequent cause for withholding State school moneys is a 
failure on the part of locahties to maintain schools for the time 
required by law. This policy is adopted by 28 States. Eleven 
States ^ qualify this form of penalization by permitting localities to 
receive their apportionment when the failure to maintain school is 
due to some uncontrollable cause, such as quarantine, fire, flood, loss 
of schoolhouse, or for good and sufficient reasons. Claims for a remit- 
tance of money withheld are considered in New Jersey and Wisconsin 
by the State superintendent, and in Connecticut, Georgia, and Vir- 
ginia by the State board of education. 

In Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, ^ Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, 
and Wyoming all State school funds legally due localities are withheld for failure to 
maintain schools for the time required by law. In Maryland a portion of the State 
school tax is withheld; in New Hampshire the literary fund; in New Jersey both the 
State appropriation and the State school tax; in "\'ermont the permanent school fund. 

LEVYING AND PAYMENT OF TAXES. 

School moneys are withheld in eight States if localities fail to levy 
taxes for school purposes and in three if locahties fail to pay the 
State school tax. This law is not enforced in Wisconsin if local 
authorities transfer, as they are authorized to do, from their general 
fund to their school fund the amount of deficit in such school tax and 
a certificate of such transfer is filed with the State superintendent. 

In Delaware, in Kent and New Castle Counties, white school districts are required 
by law to raise $100 and in Sussex County |60 for the support of schools for white 
children; in colored school districts in Kent and New Castle Counties $50 must be 
raised and in Sussex County $30 for the support of schools for colored children; failure 
to raise the amount designated results in a withholding from the offending district of 
its share of the State appropriation. In Massachusetts no apportionment is made to 
a town which has not raised by taxation ft)r the support of schools an amount not less 

1 Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, Nebraslta, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, 
Wisconsin. 

- If local officials do not comply with the law in this respect, there must be a withholding of State school 
moneys amounting to $2.25 for each child for every week such child is deprived of school. 



STATE INTEEVENTION. 71 

than $3 for each person of school age. In Minnesota no district may receive from the 
apportioned fund a greater amount than that appropriated by such district from its 
special and local 1-mill tax, unless it has levied the maximum amount allowed by 
law for school purposes. In Missouri no school district which fails to levy a tax of 40 
cents on the $100 property valuation, unless the assessment of a less amount together 
with the moneys received from the public funds shall amount to $350 for school purposes, 
may receive any part of the public school moneys. In New Mexico no portion derived 
from the 3-mill State levy is apportioned to any school district which fails to levy 
a special tax of not less than 3 mills. In Rhode Island no town may receive any part 
of the $120,000 State appropriation unless it raises by tax for the support of schools a 
sum equal to the amount it is due to receive from the State for the same purpose. In 
West Virginia no share of the general school fund may be received by a district until 
it has made the required levy. In Wisconsin no appropriation is made from the school 
fimd to any city or town which fails to raise by tax for school purposes a sum equal to 
the amount of its share of such school fund. 

In Maine no apportionment of State school funds is made to any city, town, or plan- 
tation as long as any State tax assessed upon such places remains impaid. In New 
Jersey, in case any district fails or neglects to pay the full amount of State school tax 
in the time required, the full amount apportioned to such district out of the reserve 
fund and out of the proceeds of the State school tax is withheld. In New York the 
controller may withhold the payment of any moneys to which any county may be 
entitled from the incomes of the school fund and of the United States deposit fund for 
the support of schools until all moneys required by law to be raised as a State tax have 
been collected and paid or accounted for to the State treasurer. 

CARE AND EXPENDITURE OP SCHOOL MONEYS AND FILING OF OFFICIAL BONDS. 

School moneys are withheld in six States if locahties or local 
officers fail to observe the law regarding the care and expenditure 
of school moneys, and in two States if they fail to file official bonds. 
The amounts withheld are designated as all or a portion of State 
school funds, or of a particular State school fund, or of the district's 
share of school library moneys. In New Jersey the amount author- 
ized to be withheld may be remitted by the commissioner of education. 

In Massachusetts, whenever it appears that in the opinion of the State board of edu- 
cation the sums paid to any town have not been used in whole or in part according to 
law, or have not been held and accounted for separately, or that the report thereon 
required by law has not been made, the commissioners of the school fund are authorized 
to withhold the whole or any part of the future allowances otherwise falling to such 
town. In Michigan, in case a school district has failed to use the library money 
according to law, such district loses its share of library moneys for the ensuing year. 
In New Jersey, if the board of education of any school district uses any of the school 
money received by it, except such as has been raised within the district, for any pur- 
pose other than the payment of teachers' salaries, fuel bills, the transportation of 
pupils and the tuition of pupils attending schools in adjoining districts, there must be 
deducted from the next annual apportionment a sum equal to twice the amount thus 
misused. In New York the commissioner of education is authorized to withhold its 
share of public school moneys from any city or district which uses school library 
moneys for any other purpose than that for which they are provided, or for any willful 
neglect or disobedience of the law or of the rules or orders of said commissioner per- 
taining thereto. In North Dakota no city, village, town, or school district may share 
Ib the apportionment of the State tuition fund xmless it has paid over to the State 



72 CONTROL OF ELEMENTAEY EDUCATION. 

treasurer for the teachers' insurance and retirement fund the per cent required by 
law. In Wisconsin no city, village, town, or school district may share in the -ro-mill 
tax unless it has paid over to the State treasurer for the teachers' insurance and retire- 
ment fund the per cent required by law. 

In Illinois no part of the State school fund may be paid to any officer authorized to 
receive it, unless such officer has filed his bond, or if reelected, has renewed his bond 
and filed the same. In North Dakota money must not be apportioned to any district 
imless the bond and oath of the treasurer of such district have been duly approved 
and filed. 

SUBMISSION OF REPORTS. 

Another cause for withholding school moneys is a failure on the 
part of localities or local agents to submit reports within the time and 
in the form required by law, as in 19 States.^ In some instances 
localities or local agents are required to submit reports to certain 
other local agents, or State school moneys are withheld; generally, 
however, localities or local agents are required to submit reports to 
central authorities — the State supermtendent or the State board of 
education — in order that such authorities may have a basis for the 
apportionment of State school moneys. In one of these States, 
Illinois, upon the recommendation of the county superintendent of 
schools, or for other good and sufficient reasons, the State superin- 
tendent has power to remit the moneys withheld from any township 
because of its failure to make reports required by law. 

In Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine. Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Okla- 
homa, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont all State sch< ol moneys are withlield for 
failure of local officers to submit certain required reports. In Connecticut every town 
and school district failing to make returns forfeits of the State apportionment 1 per 
cent for the first week of such delay, 2 per cent for a delay of two weeks, 3 per cent for 
a delay of three weeks, 5 per cent for a delay of four weeks, and 10 per cent for a delay 
exceeding four weeks. In Indiana, if a trustee fails to make a financial report, the 
township, town, or city apportionment is diminished $25 in the next State appor- 
tionment; further, if a county superintendent fails to report, the county is subject to 
a diminution of |10. In Massachusetts, towns failing to report by May 15 forfeit 10 
per cent of their income from the school fund; if reports are not made by Jime 1 the 
entire income due the town is withlield. In Michigan, if district boards or boards of 
education fail to report concerning school libraries, such district forfeits its share of 
library moneys. In New Hampshire no town may receive any portion of the literary 
fund imless its returns have been made to the superintendent of public instruction. 
In North Dakota no city, village, town, or school district may share in the appor- 
tionment of the State tuition fund unless it has made a report concerning the teachers' 
insurance and retirement fund as required by law. In Wisconsin no village, town, or 
school district may share in the Yo-mill tax unless it has made its report concerning 
the teachers' insurance and retirement fund. 

RETURN OF SCHOOL ENUMERATION. 

A further cause for withholding school moneys is the failure of 
localities or local officers to make enumeration returns accurately 

1 Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and 
Wisconsin. 



STATE INTEEVENTION. 73 

and promptly, applying to 13 States. In 9 States ^ all State school 
moneys are withheld if the law in this respect is violated; in North 
Dakota, the State tuition fund is withheld; in Pennsylvania, the 
State superintendent may withhold any part or all of the State 
appropriation; in Iowa, the law says that the State apportionment 
shall be reduced. 

In Connecticut no town may receive from the State treasury any money for schools 
unless the enumeration returns are made according to law. In Indiana, for failure 
of a county superintendent to report the enumeration the county is subject to a 
diminution of $25 from the next State apportionment. In Iowa, failure to report 
the enumeration reduces the semiannual apportionment for the year. In Kansas, a 
district that refuses or neglects to have the census taken forfeits its right to share in 
the annual school fund. In Massachusetts, no town which has not made its return 
of the school enumeration as required by law may receive any portion of the income 
of the State school fund. In Minnesota, when districts fail in any year to take the 
school census. State school moneys are withheld. In Missouri, if the law pertaining 
to the enumeration of children is not complied with, the offending district forfeits its 
right to any of the public funds. In North Dakota, no district which fails to make 
or report the enumeration is entitled to any portion of the State tuition fund. In 
Ohio, if the enumeration is not taken and returned, the offending district is not 
entitled to receive any part of the school moneys. In Oklahoma, for failure of a 
county superintendent or district board to report the enumeration, the county or 
district loses its share of the State apportionment. In Pennsylvania, the superin- 
tendent of public instruction, upon due hearing after two weeks' notice to the board 
of school directors affected, may withhold and declare forfeited any part or all of the 
State appropriation of any school district which refuses or neglects to enforce in a 
manner satisfactory to him the provisions of the law pertaining to the enumeration of 
children. In Rhode Island, the census returns must be forwarded to the commis- 
sioner of public schools before he may draw his order for the payment of any portion 
of the public money to a town. In Wisconsin, no apportionment may be made to 
any district for any year the report for which does not show that the school census has 
been taken. 

EMPLOYMENT OP QtrALIFIED TEACHERS AND SUPERINTENDENTS AND THE PAYMENT 

TO THEM OF A MINIMUM SALARY. 

Among the causes for which State school moneys are withheld is 
the failure on the part of local school authorities to place all public 
schools under the charge of teachers or superintendents who have 
been duly examined, approved, and employed by legal authority; 
this law applies in nine States. ^ In Wisconsin and in two other 
States, Maryland and New Jersey, local authorities are required to 
pay teachers or superintendents at least a specified minimum salary, 
under penalty of having State school moneys withheld. 

In California, Delaware, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all State 
school moneys are withheld for failure of local school boards to employ properly quali- 
fied teachers. In Michigan, any board of education employing teachers not legally 
qualified forfeits such a proportion of the primary school interest fund as the number 
of unqualified teachers employed bears to the whole number of teachers employed in 

1 Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Wisconsin. 

2 California, Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin. 



74 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

the district. In New York, no allotment of the supervision quota is made to any- 
city or district unless the commissioner of education is satisfied that such city or 
district employs a competent superintendent whose time is devoted exclusively to 
supervision. In Rhode Island, if a city or town employs an uncertificated teacher, the 
commissioner of public schools deducts from its share of the State apportionment a 
sum equal to the amount so paid. 

In Maryland, if any white teacher regularly employed receives an annual salary of 
less than $300, the controller must withhold from the offending county the March 
installment of the State school tax.' In New Jersey, if districts fail to pay supervis- 
ing principals or city superintendents a salary of at least $1,000 per year, the county 
superintendent withholds from the State apportionment allotted to such district the 
part designated for supervision purposes. In Wisconsin, if districts fail to pay 
teachers a salary of at least $40 per month for eight months. State school moneys are 
withheld. 

PROVISION OF SPECIFIED SCHOOL ACCOMMODATIONS AND ACCESSORIES. 

Still another cause for withholding school moneys in six States is 
the failure of districts to provide necessary and proper school accom- 
modations. Such accommodations are the building of schoolhouses 
sanitary in construction, the repairing and replacing of condemned 
property, the erection of fire escapes and of satisfactory outbuildings, 
the furnishing of schoolhouses, and the supplying of textbooks and 
other school apparatus. In Connecticut, the district must erect school- 
houses satisfactory to the local school board; in Pennsylvania, Vir- 
ginia, and Wisconsin State authorities — the State superintendent, 
division superintendent (a State officer) , or the State inspector acting 
under the direction of the State superintendent, respectively — are 
delegated to pass judgment upon the fitness of a schoolhouse and to 
enforce the law pertaining thereto. In Arkansas, Connecticut, New 
York, and Virginia, all State school moneys are withheld for a viola- 
tion of this law; in Pennsylvania, all or any part may be withheld; in 
Wisconsin, the school district or school corporation forfeits its share 
of the i^-mill State tax. 

In Arkansas if school buildings are not equipped with fire escapes as provided by 
law, towns forfeit the State enumeration grant during the time such buildings are 
used. In Connecticut no district is entitled to receive any money from the State 
unless it has a schoolhouse and outbuildings satisfactory to the board of school visitors. 
In New York a failure on the part of school trustees or boards of education in union 
free school districts to comply with the law regarding the condemnation of a school- 
house and the erection of a new schoolhouse in its place is sufficient ground for with- 
holding from the district or city its share of the State appropriation. In Pennsylvania 
the State superintendent has power to condemn as unfit for use, on account of insani- 
tary or other improper conditions, any school building, school site, or outbuilding in 
the State, and upon failure of the board of school directors to remedy such conditions 
he has power to withhold and declare forfeited all or any part of the annual State 
appropriation. In Virginia when a schoolhouse appears to the division superin- 
tendent to be unfit for occupancy it becomes his duty to condemn the same, and no 



1 The provisions of this section apply to Garrett Coimty only so far as to oblige that county to pay its 
teachers a minimum salary of $200 per year. 



STATE INTEEVENTIOlSr. 75 

part of the State school moneys may be applied to support any such school until the 
division superintendent is satisfied with the conditions of such building; further, no 
school district may receive any State school moneys until it has made proper provision 
for schoolhouses, furniture, appai'atus, textbooks for indigent children, and all other 
means and appliances needful. In Wisconsin whenever school buildings are not 
kept in repair the State inspector must notify the school board or other officer or 
officers having control of the school district or school corporation to repair and improve 
such buildings; if such officers refuse to comply with the order, such district or cor- 
poration forfeits its apportionment of the seven-tenths-mill tax ; further, such district 
or corporation continues to forfeit its regular apportionment from such fimd until 
there is a full compliance with the law, unless the electors vote to close the school and 
to provide transportation and tuition for all children of school age desiring to attend 
a neighboring school. 

ENFORCEMENT OF THE COMPULSORY-ATTENDANCE LAW. 

State school moneys are withheld in three States — Delaware, 
Massachusetts, and New York — if localities or local officers fail to 
enforce the compulsory-attendance law. In Massachusetts all State 
school moneys are withheld; in New York the commissioner of edu- 
cation has discretionary power to withhold one-half of the State 
school moneys from offending localities ; and in Delaware the State 
treasurer must withhold one-fourth of the public-school fund. 

I 

INTRODUCTION OF SPECIFIED STUDIES INTO THE CURRICULUM 

i 

Another cause for withholding State school moneys is the failure 
of local school authorities to observe the law regarding the introduc- 
tion of certain studies into the curriculum, as is the practice in seven 
States.^ In six of these States ^ all State school moneys are with- 
held for a violation of the law regarding instruction in physiology 
and hygiene, or physiology and hygiene with especial reference to the 
nature and effects of alcoholic drinks; in Connecticut the commis- 
sioner of public schools may withhold all or any part of the State 
appropriation for the same offense. 

EXCLUSIVE USE OP STATE-ADOPTED TEXTS AND STATE COURSE OF STUDY. 

1 

Another cause for withholding school moneys is the failure of local 
school authorities to use State-adopted texts and none other, or their 
failure to comply with the State course of study; this holds in six 
States. In Georgia all State school moneys are withheld for failure 
to enforce the law relating to textbooks; in California, Idaho, and 
Washington 25 per cent is withheld. In Oregon (in districts of the 
second and third classes) and in Washington 25 per cent is withheld 
when local school authorities fail to comply with the State course of 
study; in Wyoming, for the same reason, aU State school moneys are 
withheld. 

1 Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Wyoming. 

2 New Jersey/New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Wyoming. 



76 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

OBSERVE LAW RELATIVE TO MEDICAL INSPECTION. 

In New York if districts willfully refuse or neglect to comply with 
the law relative to medical inspection of pupils in the public schools 
and to observe the rules and regulations prescribed by the commis- 
sioners of education and health, the commissioner of education may, 
in his discretion, withhold the public money due such offending 
districts. 

EXCLUSION OF INSTRUCTION IN FOREIGN TONGUES. 

In Minnesota no part of the public money may be apportioned to 
any school in which the instruction is given in a foreign language. 

EXCLUSION OF DENOMINATIONAL, SECTARIAN, OR PARTISAN INSTRUCTION. 

In order to guard against the introduction of denominational, sec- 
tarian, or partisan instruction into the public elementary schools, 
four States — California, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada — withhold all 
State school funds from offending locaUties. 

NONSEPARATION OF PUPILS BECAUSE OF RACE OR SOCIAL POSITION. 

In Minnesota if any district classifies or segregates its pupils with 
reference to race, color, social position, or nationality, its share of the 
semiannual apportionment must be withheld. 

CLOSING OF SCHOOLS DURING INSTITUTE SESSION. 

Failure of district school boards to close schools during the time of 
holding teachers' institutes is sufficient cause in Montana for the 
withholding of all State school moneys, provided, however, that great 
distance of any school district from the place of holding the insti- 
tute, or excessive loss of time, inconvenience, and cost are considered 
good grounds upon which the county superintendent, under the 
authority and direction of the State superintendent, may excuse 
any board of trustees from closing its schools. 

APPOINTMENT OF A SCHOOL AGENT OR TREASURER AND THE REPORTING OF THE SAME. 

In New Hampshire no unincorporated place may receive its portion 
of the literary fund until a treasurer or school agent has been chosen 
to receive and appropriate the same in the manner required by law. 
In Vermont no incorporated school district is entitled to receive its 
portion of the State school tax until its school board has furnished to 
the State treasurer the name of its treasurer. 

PERFORMANCE OF ALL DUTIES SPECIFIED BY LAW. 

Lastly, all school moneys are withheld in three States if localities 
fail to live up to all the requirements of the law. 

In Maine, when the governor and council have reason to believe that a town has 
neglected to comply with the laws prescribing the duties of towns in relation to 



STATE INTERVENTION. 77 

public schools, they must direct the treasurer of the State to withhold the State 
school fund and the proceeds of the one and one-half mill tax until such town satisfies 
them that it has complied with the law. In Massachusetts no town may receive any 
part of the income of the State school moneys unless it has complied, to the satisfac- 
tion of the board of education, with all laws relating to the public schools. In New 
Jersey, when any ofiicer or ofiicial body neglects or refuses to perform any legal duty, 
State school moneys are withheld upon the approval of the commissioner of education, 
and continue to be withheld until all laws have been complied with. Further, the 
commissioner of education may directly withhold from any district its share of the 
public money of the State for willfidly disobeying any provision of the law or any 
decision, order, or regulation of the State board of education or of the commissioner. 



78 



CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 



-^ 



3 



-pads sapjnp n^ uijojj9j 


























X 




X 
















X 


























}Jod9J pnB aamsBSJi jo 
^ua3B looqos B (unoddy 












































X 
























X 


•U0ISS8S 9}n}its 

-m SnjjTip siooqa's esojo 






































X 
































•norjisod [bio 
-OS JO 90CJ j'o'gsnBoaq 
siidnd JO uonBJBdesaoN 


































X 




































•nononj4sui UBSiiJBd 
JO •uBUBjoas 'IBUOIJ 

-Buiniougp gpnpxa 






X 








X 




















X 


X 




























•sgnSuo; n3i9J0j 
ni nojpnajsni bpnpxg; 


































X 




































•noti09dsm tBDip9ni 
0} Sui^Bpj MBl 9AJ9SqO 


















































X 




















•jipms 
}0 9SjnoD g'^Bis pnB 

S^X9; p9jdopB-9JBlS 9Sfl 






X 






XX 










































X 










•tuiq 
-noujno 9qi Glut spaf 
-qris pggioads 9onpojjni 










X 


































X 


XX 






X 




X 




•MBi 9onBpnej 
-^B Xjosindmoo gojojug; 












X 
















X 


















X 




















•snoiiBpomraoooB 

pOqDS p9ljp9ds 9PIA0JJ 




X 




X 






































X 










X 








•;CjB[BS uinuiiuiui B 
nigqi oj A'ud puB sjng 
-pn9iuu9dns puB sj9 
-qoB9i p9iJ!lBnb Xo[duia 






X 




X 














X 


XX 










X 


X 








XXX 






•n9jp 
-nqo lOoqos 9^BJ9ninaa 










X 








XXX 




X 


XX 
















XXX 


XX 






•s^Jod9J ^iraqng 








XX 




XXX 


XX 


xxxxx 




X 








X 


X 




X 


XX 


•spnoq iBpyjo 
9iu puB s^9U0tn lo'oqos 

pU9dX9 pUB jo; 9JB0 


















X 










XX 












X 


X 


X 
















•S9XB^ ^Bd pUB XA.9q 












X 












X 


X 


XX 








XXX 












X 






•AVBi iCq pgjinbaj guiti 
9qj jo; siooqbs aiBjniBj^ 


X 


XXX 


XX 






XXXXXXXXXXXX 


X 






XX 




XXX 


1 
1 


c 
e 
c 

< 


e: 

< 


1 


c 

0: 
t- 
c 
"c 


1 

c 
c 




'S 

1 

c 


DC 
c 


"c 


C 


0; 
1 


i 


'5 


c 



> 




c 

is 


c 
c 

c 

c 

i 




is 


c 
c 




2; 


> 
<c 


p 

i 


a 

SI 


'1 

a. 




1 




c 

6 






c 

(A 

Q 



c 

c 


<s 

e 



c 


c 


c 


.0 

"i 

03 

> 

i 

ill 




5 




3 



02 


1 






STATE INTERVENTION. 



79 





































- 






















- 


























X 




X 










X 














X 




X 










X 










X 










X 










X 








XX 




XX 


XX 


.2 
'E 

> 


c 
'.c 


p 

'S 

> 
1 


1 


c 
E 






80 



CONTROL OF ELEMEXTAEY EDUCATION. 



DISCUSSION. 

Punishment for nonperformance of duty is the logical outcome of 
the adoption of mandatory legislation. When a State is endeavor- 
ing to maintain a certain principle, the only sure way by which it 
can expect to secure results is to punish acts of failure or refusal to 
perform specific duties. Although it is probably true that most 
communities and most officers will carry out the intent of the laws 
so far as they relate to education more faitlifully than to any other 
branch of civil service, yet it is unfortunately true, even here, that 
acts of neglect will occur. Hence the necessity for legislative provi- 
sions such as have been dealt with within this standard. While the 
penalties in some cases are more severe than in others, as would 
be expected where different States are legislating upon the same 
subjects, yet they are all calculated to achieve the same end — the 
enforcement of the law. Consideration of the facts that 13 States 
transfer authority from local to State officers when local officers fail 
in their obligations in matters involving finance, that 11 States hold 
localities or local officers financially liable to the State for the same 
cause, and that 40 States withhold school funds in an endeavor to 
insure the carrying out of the laws relating to one or more aspects 
of educational administration in general, makes it evident that in 
this standard centralization has reached a high point. 

Summary of State intervention. 



States. 



Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut... 

Delaware 

Georgia 

Idaho 

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts. 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Missouri 

Montana 

Nebraska 



Trans- i Liabil- 
fer of ity of 
au- ! locali- 

thority i ties or 
from j local 

local to officers 
State j to the 

officers. State. 



X 

X 1 X 
X X 

X I 

X ! 



X 



With- 
holding 
State 
school 
moneys. 



States. 



Nevada 

New Hampshire. 

New Jersey 

New Mexico 

New York 

North Carolina. . . 

North Dakota 

Ohio 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Dakota 

Tennessee 

rtah 

Vermont 

Virginia 

Washington 

West Virginia 

Wisconsin 

Wyoming 



Trans- 
fer of 
au- 
thority 
from 
local to 
State 
ofTicers. 



Liabil- 
ity of 
locali- 
ties or 
local 
officers 
to the 
State. 



With- 
holding 
State 
school 
moneys. 



GENERAL SUMMARY. 81 

Vn. GENERAL SUMMARY. 

As has been shown, State school legislation pertaining to elemen- 
tary school finance involves both central and local control. From a 
study of legislation alone, however, it is extremely difficult, if not 
impossible, to determine with accuracy the degree of centralization 
or localization existent. In the first place, taking some of the 
standards considered, central control operates only when localities 
desire to exercise certain functions or to avail themselves of certain 
opportunities offered by a State; hence to have a true picture of 
control the extent to which localities exercise their prerogatives 
must be known. In the second place, as strict obedience is by no 
means universal, the extent to which localities live up to the letter 
and the spirit of the laws must be known before drawing a too definite 
conclusion. In a word, complete data would require a knowledge 
of actual practice, as well as of legislation. This study of elemejQ- 
tary school finance attempts only the latter; and to the extent to 
which practice, for one or other of the two general reasons just 
stated, fails to coincide with legislation, to that extent are its findings 
open to question. In the main, however, it may be assumed that 
any difference between law and practice is not so great as to affect 
very appreciably the conclusions reached, which, after all, should be 
regarded as broad generalizations showing tendencies rather than 
as an attempt to depict exact conditions. 

In general, it may be stated that some standards which on the 
surface or by their nature apparently indicate centraUzation, upon 
analysis reveal local control or divided control ; while other standards 
which seem essentially local in their bearing, in reality indicate 
centrahzed control. ., 

LOCAL CONTROL. 

The distribution of State school moneys was regarded as being in 
itself a central and a centralizing process ; the bases upon which such 
distribution is made, however, indicate varying degrees of centrali- 
zation. A distribution on a school population or on a property valua- 
tion basis exacts little or nothing from locahties and consequently 
indicates little centrahzation of control. A distribution either on 
attendance of pupils, number of teachers employed, or ratio of local 
school tax to total town tax, requires locahties to exercise a certain 
amount of effort or cooperation in order to secure their fuU quota 
of school moneys, while distribution on an inverse property valua- 
tion basis tends to equahze the burden of local taxation proportion- 
ately to community wealth. Through such methods of distribution 
central control is brought considerably more into evidence. There- 

90757"— 15 6 



82 CONTROL OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION. 

fore in view of the fact that two-thirds of the States distribute State 
school moneys on bases which demand practically no local effort, it 
\yas concluded that the standard at the present time really indicates 
localization ; yet there are easy possibilities for effective centralization 
by the simple expedient of a change in the bases of distribution. 

DIVIDED CONTROL. 

The standard dealing with the expenditure of State school moneys 
showed that complete restriction denotes control wholly central; 
partial restriction, control partly central and partly local; while a 
total lack of restriction leaves control entirely to locaUties. Inas- 
much as 23 States completely restrict such expenditure, 7 partially 
restrict it, and 18 leave the expenditure unrestricted, the conclusion 
was reached that control within this standard may be said to be 
divided, with a tendency toward centralization. 

The act of granting State aid was found to be a central and a 
centrahzing process, because of the conditions with which localities 
must comply before receiving such aid. Considering, however, that 
State aid is granted in but 34 States; that locahties may accept or 
reject State aid as they please; and that many of the purposes for 
which State aid is granted would not appeal universally to local 
school authorities as being absolute necessities, it was concluded 
that control under this standard is divided, with a tendency toward 
locahzation. Nevertheless, there must be kept in mind the fact 
that State aid is steadily growing in respect to both purposes and 
amounts, and that as locahties increasingly avail themselves of its 
advantages, and thereby habituate themselves to a compliance with 
attached conditions, to a corresponding extent will centralization 
also increase. 

CENTRAL CONTROL. 

On the surface, the standard dealing with authority to borrow 
money and to issue bonds indicates localization of control, since 
authority to act is vested in locahties. An analysis, however, re- 
vealed the presence of numerous and rather binding restrictions in 
almost all of the 44 States authorizmg the creation of such local 
indebtedness. This fact, coupled with the rather general need of 
localities to secure money in this manner, led to the conclusion that 
the standard really indicates centrahzation. 

The next standard, deahng with State regulation of the taxing 
duties and powers of localities, in itself conveys no presupposition 
as to the location of control, but when analyzed from a double 
viewpoint — first, that of unspecified, minimum, or fixed requirements; 
second, that of maximum limitations — the standard was taken to 
be indicative of centralization. This conclusion was reached after 



GENEEAL SUMMARY. 



83 



giving due weight to the facts, first, that of the 40 States establishing 
unspecified, minimum, or fixed requirements, 18 States leave the 
amount or rate of required tax indefinite; and second, that, although 
42 States have adopted maximum limitations, the purposes of tax- 
ation to which some of these limitations apply are relatively unim- 
portant. 

The last standard, dealing with State intervention when local school 
authorities fail in performance of duty, carries with it the thought 
of centralization of control. As analyzed, there were found to be 
three forms of State intervention existent in relation to matters 
involving finance: First, the transfer of authority from a local to a 
State officer because of neglect of duty involving finance, occurring 
in 13 States; second, HabiUty of localities or local school officers to 
the State for the same cause, occurring in 1 1 States ; and third, the 
withholding of State school moneys from offending localities because 
of failure to carry out one or more State regulations, occurring in 40 
States. Legislation as thus analyzed confirmed the implication of 
the standard itself, showing a strong tendency toward centralization. 

Considering elementary school finance as a whole, therefore, it 
may be characterized as indicating divided control with a fairly 
strong tendency toward centralization. This conclusion seems to 
be a natural one, especially when viewed in the light of legislation 
other than school legislation. In general, for some years past, the 
movement of legislation tliroughout the country in matters where large 
financial interests are involved seems to have been constantly in the 
direction of increased centralization of control. Therefore it is not 
surprising to find that elementary school finance — a fundamental 
factor in the development and maintenance of efficient schools — 
should reflect in its tendency a general movement of much wider 
scope. 

Summary chart showing location of control. 



standards. 


Local 
control. 


Divided 
control. 


Central 
control. 


Basis for the distribution of State school moneys 


X 






Extent of restriction attached to the local expenditure of State school 
moneys 


X 
X 




State aid 






Restrictions upon the right of localities to borrow money and to issue bonds. 




X 


State regulation of the taxing duties and powers of localities 






X 


State intervention 






X 











BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF EDUCATION. 

[NOTK.— With the exceptions indicated, the documents named below will be sent free of charge upon 
application to the Commissioner of Education, Washington, D. C. Those marked with an asterisk (*) 
are no longer avaUable for free distribution, but may be had of the Superintendent of Documents, Govern- 
ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C, upon payment of the price stated. Remittances should be made 
ia coin, currency, or money order. Stamps are not accepted. Numbers omitted are out of print.) 

1906. 

♦No. 3. State school systems: Legislation and judicial decisions relating to public education, Oct. 1, 1904, 
to Oct. 1, 1906. Edward C Elliott. 15 cts. 

1908. 

•No. 5. Education in Formosa. Julean H. Arnold. 10 cts. 

♦No. 6. The apprenticeship system in its relation to industrial education. Carroll D. Wright. 15 cts. 

1909. 

♦No. 1. Facilities for study and research in the offices of the United States Government in Washington. 

Arthur T. Hadley. 10 cts. 
♦No. 2. Admission of Chinese students to American colleges. John Fryer. 25 cts. 
♦No. 3. Daily meals of school children. Caroline L. Hunt. 10 cts. 
No. 5. Statistics of public, society, and school libraries in 1908. 
♦No. 6. Instruction in the fine and manual arts in the United States. A statistical monograph. Henry 

T. Bailey. 15 cts. 
No. 7. Index to the Reports of the Commissioner of Education, 1867-1907. 
♦No. 8. A teacher's professional library. Classified Ust of 100 titles. 5 cts. 
♦No. 9. Bibliography of education for 1908-9. 10 cts. 
No. 10. Education for efficiency in railroad service. J. Shirley Eaton. 

♦No. 11. Statistics of State universities and other institutions of higher education partially supported by 
the State, 1908-9. 5 cts. 

1910. 

♦No. 1. The movement for reform in the teaching of religion in the public schools of Saxony. Arley B. 

Show. 5 cts. 
No. 2. State school systems: III. Legislation and judicial decisions relating to public education, Oct. 1, 

1908, to Oct. 1, 1909. Edward C. Elliott. 
*No. 5. American schooLhouses. Fletcher B. Dresslar. 75 cts. 

1911. 

♦No. 1. Bibliography of science teaching. 5 cts. 

♦No. 2. Opportunities for graduate study in agriculture in the United States. A. C. Monahan. 5 cts. 

♦No. 3. Agencies for the improvement of teachers in service. William C. Ruediger. 15 cts. 

♦No. 4. Report of the commission appointed to study the system of education in the public schools of 

Baltimore. 10 cts. 
♦No. 5. Age and grade census of schools and colleges. George D. Strayer. 10 cts. 
♦No. 6. Graduate work in mathematics in universities and in other institutions of like grade in the United 

States. 5 cts. 
No. 9. Mathematics in the technological schools of collegiate grade in the United States. 
*No. 13. Mathematics in the elementary schools of the United States. 15 cts. 
♦No. 14. Provision for exceptional children in the public schools. J. H. Van Sickle, Lightner Witmer, 

and Leonard P. Ayres. 10 cts. 
♦No. 15. Educational system of China as recently reconstructed. Harry E. King. 10 cts. 
No. 19. Statistics of State universities and other institutions of higher education partially supported by 
the State, 1910-11. 

1912. 

♦No. 1. Acourseofstudy for the preparation of rural-school teachers. F.Mutchler and W.J.Craig. 5 cts. 

♦No. 3. Report of committee on uniform records and reports. 5 cts. 

♦No. 4. Mathematics in technical secondary schools in the United States. 5 cts. 

♦No. 5. A study of expenses of city school systems. Harlan Updegrafl. 10 cts. 

♦No. 6. Agricultural education in secondary schools. 10 cts. 

♦No. 7. Educational status of nursing. M. Adelaide Nutting. 10 cts. 

I 



n BULLETIN OF THE BUEEAU OF EDUCATION. 

*No. 8. Peace day. Fannie Fern Andrews. 5 cts. [Later publication, 1913, No. 12. 10 cts.] 
*No. 9. Country schools for city boys. William S. Myers. 10 cts. 
*No. 13. Influences tending to improve the work of the teacher of mathematics. 5 cts. 
*No. 14. Report of the American commissioners of the international commission on the teaching of mathe- 
matics. 10 cts. 
*No. 17. The Montessori system of education. Anna T. Smith. 5 cts. 
*No. 18. Teaching language through agricultiu-e and domestic science. M. A. Leiper 5 cts. 
♦No. 19. rrofessional distribution of college and university graduates. Bailey B. Burritt. 10 cts. 

No. 22. Public and private high schools. 
*No. 23. Special collections in libraries in the United States. W. D.Johnston and I. G. Mudge. 10 cts. 

No. 27. History of public-school education in Arkansas. Stephen B. Weeks. 
*No. 28. Cultivating school grounds in Wake County, N. C. Zebulon Judd. 5 cts. 

No. 29. BibUography of the teaching of mathematics, 1900-1912. D. E. Smith and Chas. Goldziher. 

No. 30. Latin- American universities and special schools. Edgar E. Brandon. 

1913. 

No. 1. Monthly record of current educational pubUcations, January, 1913. 
♦No. 2. Training courses for rural teachers. A. C. Monahan and R. H. Wright. Sets. 
♦No. 3. The teaching of modern languages in the United States. Charles II. Handschin. 15 cts. 
*No. 4. Present standards of higher education in the United States. George E. MacLean. "20 cts. 
*No. 6. Agricultural instruction ia high schools. C. H. Robison and F. B. Jenks. 10 cts. 
♦No. 7. College entrance requirements. Clarence D. Kingsley. 15 cts. 
♦No. 8. The status of rural education in the United States. A. C. Monahan. 15 cts. 
♦No. 12. The promotion of peace. Fannie Fern Andrews. 10 cts. 

♦No. 13. Standards and tests for measuring the efficiency of schools or systems of schools. 5 cts. 
♦No. 16. Bibliography of medical inspection and health supervision. 15 cts. 

♦No. 18. The fifteenth international congress on hygiene and demography. Fletcher B. Dresslar. 10 cts. 
♦No. 19. German industrial education and its lessons for the United States. Holmes Beckwith. 15 cts. 
♦No. 20. Illiteracy in the United States. 10 cts. 

♦No. 22. Bibliography of industrial, vocational, and trade education. 10 cts. 
♦No. 23. The Georgia club at the State Normal School, Athens, Ga., for the study of rural sociology. E. C. 

Branson. 10 cts. 
♦No. 24. A comparison of public education in Germany and in the United States. Georg Kerschensteiner. 

Sets. 
♦No. 25. Industrial education in Columbus, Ga. Roland B. Daniel. 5 cts. 
♦No. 28. Expressions on education by American statesmen and publicists. 5 cts. 
♦No. 29. Accredited secondary schools in the United States. Kendric C. Babcock. 10 cts. 
♦No. 30. Education in the South. 10 cts. 
♦No. 31. Special features in city school systems. 10 cts. 

No. 32. Educational survey of Montgomery County, Md. 
♦No. 34. Pension systems in Great Britain. Raymond W. Sies. 10 cts. 
♦No. 35. A list of books suited to a high-school library. 15 cts. 
♦No. 36. Report on the work of the Bureau of Education for the natives of Alaska, 1911-12. 10 cts. 

No. 37. Monthly record of current educational publications, October, 1913. 
♦No. 38. Economy of time in education. 10 cts. 

No. 39. Elementary industrial school of Cleveland, Ohio. W. N. HaUmann. 
♦No. 40. The reorganized school playground. Henry S. Curtis. 10 cts. 
♦No. 41. The reorganization of secondary education. 10 cts. 

No. 42. An experimental rural school at Winthrop College. H. S. Browne. 
♦No. 43. Agriculture and rural-life day; material for its observance. Eugene C. Brooks. 10 cts. 
♦No. 44. Organized health work in schools. E. B. Hoag. 10 cts. 

No. 45. Monthly record of current educational publications, November, 1913. 
♦No. 46. Educational directory, 1913. 15 cts. 

♦No. 47. Teaching material in Government publications. F. K. Noyes. 10 cts. 
♦No. 48. School hygiene. W. Carson Ryan, jr. 15 cts. 

No. 49. The Farragut School, a Tennessee country-life high school. A. C. Monahan and Adams Phillips. 
♦No. 50. The Fitchburg plan of cooperative industrial education. M. R. McCann. 10 cts. 
♦No. 51. Education of the immigrant. 10 cts. 
♦No. 52. Sanitary schoolhouses. Legal requirements in Indiana and Ohio. 5 cts. 

No. 53. Monthly record of current educational publications, December, 1913. 

No. 54. Consular reports on industrial education in Germany. 

No. 55. Legislation and judicial decisions relating to education, Oct. 1, 1909, to Oct. 1,1912. James C. 
Boykin and William R. Hood. 

No. 58. Educational system of rural Denmark. Harold W. Foght. 

No. 59. Bibliography of education for 1910-11. 

No. 60. Statistics of State universities and other institutions of higher education partially supported by 
the State, 1912-13. 



BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF EDUCATION. Ill 

1914. 

♦No. 1. Monthly record of current educational publications, January, 1914. 5 cts. 

No. 2. Compulsory school attendance. 
*No. 3. Monthly record of current educational publications, February, 1914. 5 cts. 

No. 4. The school and the start in life. Meyer Bloomfleld. 

No. 5. The folk high schools of Denmark. L. L. Friend. 

No. 6. Kindergartens in the United States. 

No. 7. Monthly record of current educational publications, March, 1914. 
*No. 8. The Massachusetts home-project plan of vocational agricultural education. R.W. Stimson. 15 cts. 

No. 9. Monthly record of current educational publications, April, 1914. 
*No. 10. Physical growth and school progress. B. T. Baldwin. 25 cts. 
*No. 11. Monthly record of current educational publications. May, 1914. 5 cts. 
♦No. 12. Rural schoolhouses and grounds. F. B. Dresslar. 50 cts. 

No. 13. Present status of drawing and art in the elementary and secondary schools of the United States. 
Royal B. Famum. 

No. 14. Vocational guidance. 

No. 15. Monthly record of current educational publications. Index. 

No. 16. The tangible rewards of teaching. James C. Boykin and Roberta King. 

No. 17. Sanitary survey of the schools of Orange County, Va. Roy K. Flannagan. 

No. 18. The public-school system of Gary, Ind. William P. Burris. 

No. 19. University extension in the United States. Louis E. Reber. 

No. 20. The rural school and hookworm disease. J. A. Ferrell. 

No. 21. Monthly record of current educational publications, September, 1914. 

No. 22. The Danish folk high schools. H. W. Foght. 

No. 23. Some trade schools in Em-ope. Frank L. Glynn. 

No. 24. Danish elementary rural schools. H. W. Foght. 

No. 25. Important features in rural school improvement. W. T. Hodges. 

No. 26. Monthly record of current educational publications, October, 1914. 
*No. 27. Agricultural teaching. 15 cts. 

No. 28. The Montessori method and the kindergarten. Elizabeth Harrison. 

No. 29. The kindergarten in benevolent institutions. 

No. 30. Consolidation of rural schools and transportation of pupils at public expense. A. C. Monahan. 

No. 31. Report on the work of the Bureau of Education for the natives of Alaska. 

No. 32. Bibliography of the relation of secondary schools to higher education. R. I.. Walkley. 

No. 33. Music in the public schools. Will Earhart. 

No. 34. Library instruction in universities, colleges, and normal schools. Henry R. Evans. 

No. 35. The training of teachers in England, Scotland, and Germany. Charles H. Judd. 
*No. 36. Education for the home— Part I. General statement. B. R. Andrews. 10 cts. 
*No. 37. Education for the home— Part II. State legislation, schools, agencies. B. R. Andrews. 30 cts. 

No. 38. Education for the home— Part III. Colleges and universities. B. R. Andrews. 

No. 39. Education for the home— Part IV. Bibliography, list of schools. B. R. Andrews. 

No. 40. Care of the health of boys in Girard College, Philadelphia, Pa. 

No. 41. Monthly record of current educational publications, November, 1914. 

No. 42. Monthly record of current educational publications, December, 1914. 

No. 43. Educational directory, 1914-15. 

No. 44. County-unit organization for the administration of rural schools. A. C. Monahan. 

No. 45. Curricula in mathematics. J. C. Brown. 

No. 46. School savings banks. Mrs. Sara L. Oberholtzer. 

No. 47. City training schools for teachers. Frank A. Manny. 

No. 48. The educational museum of the St. Louis public schools. C. G. Rathman. 

No. 49. Efficiency and preparation of rural school-teachers. H. W. Foght. 

No. 50. Statistics of State universities and State colleges. 

1915. 

No. 1. Cooking in the vocational school. Iris P. O'Leary. 
No. 2. Monthly record of current educational publications, January, 1915. 
No. 3. Monthly record of current educational publications, February, 1915. 
No. 4. The health of school children. W. H. Heck. 
No. 5. Organization of State departments of education. A. C. Monahan. 
No. 6. A study of colleges and high schools. 

No. 7. Accredited secondary schools in the United States. Samuel P. Capen. 
No. 8. Present status of the honor system in colleges and universities. Bird T. Baldwin. 
No. 9. Monthly record of current educational publications, March, 1915. 
No. 10. Monthly record of current educational publications, April, 1915. 

No. 11. A statistical study of the public-school systems of the southern Appalachian Mountains. Nor- 
man Frost. 



IV BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF EDUCATION. 

No 12. History of public-school education in Alabama. Stephen B. Weeks. 

No. 13. The schoolhouse as the polling place. E. J. Ward. 

No. 14. Monthly record of current educational publications, May, 1915. 

No. 15. Monthly record of current educational publications. Index, Feb., 1914- Jan., 1915. 

No. 16. Monthly record of current educational publications, June, 1915. 

No. 17. Civic education in elementary schools as illustrated in Indianapolis. A. W. Dunn. 

No. 18. Legal education in Great Britain. H. S. Richards. 

No. 19. Statistics of agricultural, manual training, and industrial schools, 1913-14. 

No. 20. The rural school system of Minnesota. H. W. Foght. 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



021 289 077 7 




